Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

I apologize. I didn't intend to blindside you and I did believe I asked the question about a fundamental right to bear arms (outside the context of the 2nd Amendment).

So, what is your opinion regarding the right to bear arms?

No worries, I think I was getting overwhelmed there for a while.

The right to bear arms - your 2nd amendment. I'm waiting for the US Supreme Court judgement to clarify it (just out of academic interest really). I think though that the English common law and some older statutes (now non-existent as authority in English law) required subjects (and they were) to have arms available.

As I indicated above, we have no constitutional right to bear arms now, legislation has extinguished that ancient right. Owning and using etc a firearm here is seen as a privilege, regulated by the state.

But as I say, it will be interesting to read the judgement.

 

[manifold]

Still dancing I see.




Do you have a philosophical position on the matter that you're just not willing to divulge, or have you willfully never actually considered it?

 

[Bern80]

Are we now getting into semantics rather than substance?

What about my argument is semantical? You don't usually take the easy way out. I countered every argument you made, none of which could be remotely construed as semantical. Your treading water pretty hard to make this bogus notion of requiring one to prove necessity stick. If anyone is haveing to deal in semantics to make that argument work, it's you.

 

[Diuretic]

Still dancing I see.




Do you have a philosophical position on the matter that you're just not willing to divulge, or have you willfully never actually considered it?

Is that for me?

 

[Diuretic]

What about my argument is semantical? You don't usually take the easy way out. I countered every argument you made, none of which could be remotely construed as semantical. Your treading water pretty hard to make this bogus notion of requiring one to prove necessity stick. If anyone is haveing to deal in semantics to make that argument work, it's you.

No I didn't mean that, to be frank my eyes are spinning in their sockets trying to catch up with the verbiage. I find lots of paragraphs and comments to be very difficult to follow after a certain point, I prefer to read lengthy written pieces on paper than on screen, but that's just me.

Can I get back to my point and perhaps state it in clearer terms?

It's my position that there is no need for a non-military person (CT police excepted but I won't keep mentioning that all the time) to have personal ownership of a fully automatic weapon. I need to re-state that because frankly I'm confused about what was being argued.

I made the point about need. I think that's when the semantic explosion took place, the discussion started to focus on definitions of "need" and "want" and went all over the place.

Yes there is a difference between a "need" and a "want" but, this is nothing new, there's a latter day confusion between the terms. There are only a few real needs for humans. We have lots of wants. "Needs" must be satisfied for us to survive, "wants" are what we call the targets of our motivational impulses. I need shelter to survive but I want a mansion to live in.

There is an other form of "need" that I referred to and that's a more practical approach.

Let's say my car is broken and let's say I can fix it (now you know this is fiction). I want to fix my car but I need tools to do the job properly but I don't need to drive the car for transportation, that want can be satisfied by my walking, calling a cab, getting the bus, riding a bike and so on, but to transport myself by other than foot I need a form of transportation. This need is really a facilitation of want.

Now back to my previous arguments. I said that I found it quite okay for someone who wanted to indulge in recreational shooting of some type to be able to use/possess a firearm capable of allowing that person to indulge their want for recreational shooting. Since someone can't indulge in recreational shooting without a firearm then they need to get a firearm. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposition. Given that their want is not illegal then their need so that the want can be fulfilled is reasonable.

This is predicated on the idea that certain firearms for recreational purposes are appropriate. Long weapons and handguns. Single and semi-auto mechanisms. Let's just use those classifications for ease of argument.

To the fully automatic weapon. I need to make the distinction again between the firearms made for recreational purposes and those made for military purposes. The primary purposes of recreational purpose firearms is….recreation. The bullets can be used to hit a paper target, a clay skeet or to kill an animal or bird. As has been pointed out, they’re not intended to kill humans, although of course they can be used for that purpose. But I think if the manufacturer of a rifle or a handgun were pressed they would argue that self-defence, that is, using the weapon on a human, is a secondary use. But that’s my assumption of course.

The fully automatic weapon has as its primary purpose the killing of humans. That’s what it’s designed for. I feel pretty sure that the manufacturers of fully automatic weapons would say that, yes, they’re designed for military purpose, primary intention the killing of other human beings. Fully automatic weapons are designed for that purpose and they do it well (in the hands of someone properly trained to use them of course).

Now, I have a problem allowing non-military (or non-excepted) persons from private ownership and use of fully automatic weapons. I believe those weapons belong with the institutions of the military and the police, that no cogent argument for personal ownership by civilians (except certain civilian police) exists. The potential for the misuse of any firearm exists, but the potential damage caused by misuse of a fully automatic weapon far exceeds the potential damage that can be caused even by someone with a semi-automatic long weapon.

I did allow that a business institution such as a range may have institutional ownership of a fully automatic weapon to allow recreational use for those inclined.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually Diuretic, you have presented a reasoned argument, but I surmise that you are not a resident of the USA?

You are correct that sometimes we confuse 'need' and 'want'. In the context Bern used this though, I took to mean that if you WANT to go fishing, you NEED a fishing pole in order to do that.

If you WANT to enjoy target shooting with a fully automatic weapon, you NEED a fully automatic weapon in order to do that.

So the issue boils down to the reasonableness of allowing personal freedoms to law abiding, responsible people to do what they WANT to do versus the benefit for the common good of not putting highly dangerous weaons into the hands of irresponsible people.

Frankly I would be uncomfortable for my crazy neighbor who gets raucously drunk on weekends on a fairly regular basis to have access to a machine gun or even small Sherman tank. I think I would also be glad to know there are no live grenades laying around the house within his reach.

And there is a part of me that resists unnecessarily or arbitrarily restricting freedoms of people when such freedom affects nobody else.

There really should be a happy medium in there somewhere though.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually Diuretic, you have presented a reasoned argument, but I surmise that you are not a resident of the USA?

You are correct that sometimes we confuse 'need' and 'want'. In the context Bern used this though, I took to mean that if you WANT to go fishing, you NEED a fishing pole in order to do that.

If you WANT to enjoy target shooting with a fully automatic weapon, you NEED a fully automatic weapon in order to do that.

So the issue boils down to the reasonableness of allowing personal freedoms to law abiding, responsible people to do what they WANT to do versus the benefit for the common good of not putting highly dangerous weaons into the hands of irresponsible people.

Frankly I would be uncomfortable for my crazy neighbor who gets raucously drunk on weekends on a fairly regular basis to have access to a machine gun or even small Sherman tank. I think I would also be glad to know there are no live grenades laying around the house within his reach.

And there is a part of me that resists unnecessarily or arbitrarily restricting freedoms of people when such freedom affects nobody else.

There really should be a happy medium in there somewhere though.

You're right, I'm not a US resident.

I'm in fairly broad agreement with your point about restrictions on freedoms. I believe there have to be restrictions on freedoms, the less less restrictive the better and even then they shouldn't be imposed without a demonstrated need, but there's no such thing as absolute freedom.

As far as fully automatic weapons are concerned, I've made my point and now I'll have to defend it. For me it's an example of where a reasonable restriction has to be imposed, because without that reasonable restriction much havoc could be wrought.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You're right, I'm not a US resident.

I'm in fairly broad agreement with your point about restrictions on freedoms. I believe there have to be restrictions on freedoms, the less less restrictive the better and even then they shouldn't be imposed without a demonstrated need, but there's no such thing as absolute freedom.

As far as fully automatic weapons are concerned, I've made my point and now I'll have to defend it. For me it's an example of where a reasonable restriction has to be imposed, because without that reasonable restriction much havoc could be wrought.

Fully automatic weapons have been tightly controlled since the 30's. They are only legal in 37 States, require a Federal license to own and you must keep the Government informed of where you store the weapon and when you move. The license used to be 200 dollars and is now I believe 800 dollars. Believe me there is a fairly extensive background check before you get the license if ever.

You can not transport them across State lines with out informing the Federal Government and can never take them into a State where they are illegal.

You must have a license even if you just buy seers to turn a semi automatic into a fully automatic weapon. That didn't used to be the case but is now, since unscrupulous dealers were skirting the intent of the law by selling seers to people and not registering them as having them, allowing them to make fully automatic weapons illegally.

There is absolutely no chance the ruling from the Supreme Court will have ANY effect on those laws and regulations. It is a pipe dream of the " I can have a howitzer if I want" crowd.

The NRA does not advocate fully automatic weapons either.

 

[Diuretic]

Thanks for those facts (I was unaware of them), that throws light on the subject.

 

[Bern80]

There is an other form of "need" that I referred to and that's a more practical approach.

I'm afraid I don't see the practicallity aspect of it. Of course an automatic is not practical for much of anything outside of military use. Thus really the only thing a civilian would be using it for is a recreational purpose, which you argue you would allow other types of firearms.

Now back to my previous arguments. I said that I found it quite okay for someone who wanted to indulge in recreational shooting of some type to be able to use/possess a firearm capable of allowing that person to indulge their want for recreational shooting. Since someone can't indulge in recreational shooting without a firearm then they need to get a firearm. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposition. Given that their want is not illegal then their need so that the want can be fulfilled is reasonable.

And again this is the position that makes no sense. I'm arguing it because it shouldn't make any sense to you either. You just is ridiculous to me that you have created a neccessity out of a desire. Even more bazaar is that there must be this arbitrary line preventing us from obtaining some of things that we 'need' to fascilitate those desires, but you haven't identified really what the variable is that makes automatics different (well sort of, it just isn't accurate).

Look at your pattern:

I WANT to golf -> I NEED Golf clubs, owning golf clubs is okay

I WANT to shoot skeet -> I NEED a shotgun, owning a shotgun is okay

I WANT to hunt deer -> I NEED a semi-auto rifle, owning a semi-auto rifle is okay

Just to make it real mundane:

I WANT to decorate my wall with a functional, automatic rifle - I NEED an automatic rifle, owning an automatic rifle is NOT okay.

Personally i don't see the difference in the second and the fourth

The fully automatic weapon has as its primary purpose the killing of humans. That’s what it’s designed for. I feel pretty sure that the manufacturers of fully automatic weapons would say that, yes, they’re designed for military purpose, primary intention the killing of other human beings. Fully automatic weapons are designed for that purpose and they do it well (in the hands of someone properly trained to use them of course).

Not to repeat, but again this is the same debate I had before and that position is 100% patently false. it doesn't matter what someone else designed the weapon for. It doesn't matter what they are mostly used for. The only thing that matters is what YOU will use it for. What YOUR purpose is. if all you intend to use it for is a wall decoration, then what it was designed to do or what was traditionally used for becomes completely moot.

Now, I have a problem allowing non-military (or non-excepted) persons from private ownership and use of fully automatic weapons. I believe those weapons belong with the institutions of the military and the police, that no cogent argument for personal ownership by civilians (except certain civilian police) exists. The potential for the misuse of any firearm exists, but the potential damage caused by misuse of a fully automatic weapon far exceeds the potential damage that can be caused even by someone with a semi-automatic long weapon.

No cogent argument exists to own almost any gun Diuretic. Your attempt to create a need out of a want just plain doesn't fly. If you think it does you are going to have to explain how they desire to golf thus 'needing' a golf club
and the desire to shoot an automatic rifle, thus 'needing' an automatic rifle are somehow different. The real brain buster here is that really by your argunment for that one thing (wanting to shoot an automatic rifle) there is not possible way I could establish a need for an automatic rifle. Yet (again by your argument) if I want to golf I now can establish a need? Again i ask what variable has changed?


Your answer to that is essentially what you beleive to be an increased danger inherent in an automatic rifle and that you believe it is desgined to kill. The later of which is patently false. An automatic rifle is designed to shoot bullets quickly. In terms of objectivity and honesty as to the function of something, that is the most you can attribute to an automatic rifle. A person determines purpose.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm afraid I don't see the practicallity aspect of it. Of course an automatic is not practical for much of anything outside of military use. Thus really the only thing a civilian would be using it for is a recreational purpose, which you argue you would allow other types of firearms.

I mentioned recreational purposes and described them. That was specifically relevant to the issue of personal ownership and use of the firearm. As I said, I see no problem in a civilian owning/using the firearms I cited as being required for recreational purposes, those recreational purposes were described and if you go back and read the post you'll see I limited the meaning of "recreational purposes". You're now trying to rework my use of the term "recreational purposes" to broaden it out to mean far more than I described.

I did also mention that I saw it as probably okay for a range business to own automatic weapons so that individuals can come along and use the weapons on the range. Now it's self-evident that that would be for fun. Yes, it's fun firing a fully automatic weapon, well I think it is anyway. But I specifically rejected recreation as a condition for private, civilian ownership and use of fully automatic weapons (and when I use the term "ownership and use" I mean being stored at home by a civilian individual).

So, it's clear that I didn't and don't hold that a recreational purpose is sufficient reason to allow private ownership and use of a fully automatic weapon.

And again this is the position that makes no sense. I'm arguing it because it shouldn't make any sense to you either. You just is ridiculous to me that you have created a neccessity out of a desire. Even more bazaar is that there must be this arbitrary line preventing us from obtaining some of things that we 'need' to fascilitate those desires, but you haven't identified really what the variable is that makes automatics different (well sort of, it just isn't accurate).

Look at your pattern:

I WANT to golf -> I NEED Golf clubs, owning golf clubs is okay

I WANT to shoot skeet -> I NEED a shotgun, owning a shotgun is okay

I WANT to hunt deer -> I NEED a semi-auto rifle, owning a semi-auto rifle is okay

Just to make it real mundane:

I WANT to decorate my wall with a functional, automatic rifle - I NEED an automatic rifle, owning an automatic rifle is NOT okay.

Personally i don't see the difference in the second and the fourth

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote, I want you to do that.

Not to repeat, but again this is the same debate I had before and that position is 100% patently false. it doesn't matter what someone else designed the weapon for. It doesn't matter what they are mostly used for. The only thing that matters is what YOU will use it for. What YOUR purpose is. if all you intend to use it for is a wall decoration, then what it was designed to do or what was traditionally used for becomes completely moot.

But you're ignoring the argument I put. You can't just close your eyes and repeat yourself.

In evaluating whether or not a civilian should be able to own and use a firearm, I contend that the nature of the weapon must be taken into consderation. I thought about the nature of various firearms and came up with the points I made. The primary purpose of a fully automatic weapon is to kill people as efficiently as possible. That primary purpose, I argue, separates the fully automatic weapon from its non-fully auto cousins. The nature of the weapon is in itself, not in how someone else treats it.

No cogent argument exists to own almost any gun Diuretic. Your attempt to create a need out of a want just plain doesn't fly. If you think it does you are going to have to explain how they desire to golf thus 'needing' a golf club
and the desire to shoot an automatic rifle, thus 'needing' an automatic rifle are somehow different. The real brain buster here is that really by your argunment for that one thing (wanting to shoot an automatic rifle) there is not possible way I could establish a need for an automatic rifle. Yet (again by your argument) if I want to golf I now can establish a need? Again i ask what variable has changed?

A golf club isn't a fully automatic firearm.

Your answer to that is essentially what you beleive to be an increased danger inherent in an automatic rifle and that you believe it is desgined to kill. The later of which is patently false. An automatic rifle is designed to shoot bullets quickly. In terms of objectivity and honesty as to the function of something, that is the most you can attribute to an automatic rifle. A person determines purpose.

No, firing a lot of bullets quickly is a function, not a purpose. The purpose of the weapon is to kill humans, it does that by firing a lot of bullets quickly. Do you really believe Kalashnikov invented his eponymous weapon to blast trees?

 

[Dr Grump]

Do you really believe Kalashnikov invented his eponymous weapon to blast trees?

No, I thought he invented it to put on his wall...

 

[Bern80]

I mentioned recreational purposes and described them. That was specifically relevant to the issue of personal ownership and use of the firearm. As I said, I see no problem in a civilian owning/using the firearms I cited as being required for recreational purposes, those recreational purposes were described and if you go back and read the post you'll see I limited the meaning of "recreational purposes". You're now trying to rework my use of the term "recreational purposes" to broaden it out to mean far more than I described.

No. You are the one narrowing it. How is the recereational purpose of fireing an automaic rifle (a purpose for which you wont' allow one to own said automatic), different from the recreational purpose of shooting skeet with a shotgun (for which you will allow ownership of a gun)

I did also mention that I saw it as probably okay for a range business to own automatic weapons so that individuals can come along and use the weapons on the range. Now it's self-evident that that would be for fun. Yes, it's fun firing a fully automatic weapon, well I think it is anyway. But I specifically rejected recreation as a condition for private, civilian ownership and use of fully automatic weapons (and when I use the term "ownership and use" I mean being stored at home by a civilian individual).

I just wish you would see how completely arbitrary, based on nothing valid, that postion is. Cut to the chase. Your argument doesn't really have anything to do with this flawed notion of neccessity. It has do with fear and perception. Be specific, why do you oppose someone haveing an automatic rifle for recreational purposes? For every answer you come up with ask yourself it is logical and rationally founded.

So, it's clear that I didn't and don't hold that a recreational purpose is sufficient reason to allow private ownership and use of a fully automatic weapon.

Seeing as recreation would be the most mundane of reasons one would want an automatic, your postion really is that automatics should be banned from civilan use.

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote, I want you to do that.

I read and comprehend exactley what you wrote. it just doesn't make any real sense. You are attempting to make automatic weapons into something they aren't for the sake of your argument. We got way to far into this particular facette in my opinion considering the very premise itself is completely flawed. So let's tackle your basic premise so you can see how wonky it is.

You're premise was if one WANTS to do something and that something requires some tool, you therefore NEED that tool. But again you can't create a NEED out of a WANT. On top of that where firearms are concerned you're saying we should make it legal precedent. Imagine your system unfolding for a second.

Hi Dirutec, I need a shotgun.

Why?

Because I want to shoot skeet.

Oh, well Bern since you NEED the gun, here's your permit.

This argument doesn't work because I don't NEED to skeet shoot, therefore I don't NEED the gun either. It's a horribly convenient argument, can you imagine the kids at Christmas if they were allowed to use this logic? "Daddy buy me an XBox" "No son, they're too expensive" "But i need it because i want to play videogames." Oh son, why didn't you say so, since you need it i'll get right on that."

But you're ignoring the argument I put. You can't just close your eyes and repeat yourself.

No I'm not. i have explained multiple times why it is horribly flawed.

In evaluating whether or not a civilian should be able to own and use a firearm, I contend that the nature of the weapon must be taken into consderation. I thought about the nature of various firearms and came up with the points I made. The primary purpose of a fully automatic weapon is to kill people as efficiently as possible. That primary purpose, I argue, separates the fully automatic weapon from its non-fully auto cousins. The nature of the weapon is in itself, not in how someone else treats it.

And this where I get to say it is you ignoring my argument. As you noted later guns have a function. They do NOT have innate purpose. This is key and something you really need to understand. INANIMATE OBJECTS DO NOT HAVE INATE PURPOSE. It simply isn't possible. A PERSON has to decided what that purpose is. You can prove this out very easily. You have got to wrap your head around the concept that purpose is derived from people. Purpose is an idea. Only people can have ideas.

No, firing a lot of bullets quickly is a function, not a purpose. The purpose of the weapon is to kill humans, it does that by firing a lot of bullets quickly. Do you really believe Kalashnikov invented his eponymous weapon to blast trees?

See above. This really is an ass backwards argument. I don't even know where to go with this anymore. My head hurts thinking about what a bazaar way of thinking this idea alone is. There are so many requirements of this argument to make it valid it's mind boggling. There is no way you can define purpose without a human component, but that is what your argument woudl require none the less. THE PURPOSE OF SOMETHING IS WHATEVER THE USER SAYS IT IS. A PERSON had to decide what the purpose of an automatic would be. You can see how flawed your argument is in this simple truth. what if history had turned out different. What if automatic were by and large used for simplly target shooting? Would you be able to say an automatics purpose was to kill people then? Of course not. I simply don't see what something has been trafitionally used for has to do with me and what I will use it for. Therefore the person has control over what the purpose(what they will use it for) is. So if I decide what I am going to use it for what possible relevance could the traditional use of it have?

 

[Diuretic]

No, I thought he invented to put on his wall...

 

[Diuretic]

Bern - a fully automatic weapon has as its primary purpose the killing of human beings. It's not meant for recreational purposes. It can be used for the secondary purpose of recreation such as blasting the crap out of an old car body on a range. But the fact that it can be used for recreational purposes doesn't negate the primary purpose. Do you agree or not? If not, why not?

 

[Bern80]

Bern - a fully automatic weapon has as its primary purpose the killing of human beings. It's not meant for recreational purposes. It can be used for the secondary purpose of recreation such as blasting the crap out of an old car body on a range. But the fact that it can be used for recreational purposes doesn't negate the primary purpose. Do you agree or not? If not, why not?

Do you agree or disagree:

Peolple give inanimate objects purpose?


As to your quesiton, I disagree because one of your arguments againsts allowing people to own an automatic is that it's purpose is to kill. Again that argument doesn't work on so many levels, it hurts to think about. It flat out defies logic. For that position to valid or rationale not only would an automatic some have had to inately be given it's purpose, but people woudl also have to be beholden to that purpose. They would have to somehow be compelled to use it for that purpose.

Further it just plain isn't accurate to say an automatic's purpose is to kill. That simply isn't something you can ascribe to an inanimate object. The best way to say it would be that person designed this weapon for a specific use in mind. Futher neither of us know what that even is. You wold be forced to admit as well that before automatics came in military use the bolt action rifle was designed for the purpose of killing people. However you have said they have recreationl use. That proves two things. 1) People give objects their purpose and 2) something's purpose can change.

The point is a person gives an object it's purpose. Therefore if I owned a an automatic I would determine it's purpose. slinging bullets into junk cars sounds fun so that's gonna be my purpose. That being the case what relevance does the traditional use of an automatic have to do with whether or not I should get to own one?

 

[Diuretic]

Does the phrase "form follows function" mean anything to you?

You probably know it's an architectural saying but it's appropriate here.

Kalashnikov identified a necessary function for his famous weapon. He designed it to meet that function. The primary purpose is represented in the design. Kalashnikov probably didn't care that his weapon could be used for hammering in tent pegs, its purpose was to kill people.

You're confusing purpose with use, they're not the same. The purpose of a Kalashnikov is to kill people. It can be used to hammer in tent pegs, it can be used to belt people in the face with, it can be used to spray bullets at an old car body on a range. Its purpose isn't changed by temporary usage. Its purpose is in the mind of the designer, its purpose is to kill people. It can't be treated as a rather interesting hammer, even though it can be used as one, when it's plainly designed to kill people.

A hammer can be used to hammer in tent pegs. A hammer can be used to kill someone. Its primary purpose is to apply a lot of force over a small area and therefore to magnify the force being applied. The user decides if it's a tent peg or a human head that it's used on. But its primary purpose is not to kill people. So, it needn't be seen in the same light as an instrument whose primary purpose is to kill people.

So, again, purpose is not use. Purpose is the primary reason for design and construction. If Kalashnikov wrote a manual for his weapon I'd be surprised if he included a section on how to bash tent pegs into the ground.

 

[LOki]

Bern - a fully automatic weapon has as its primary purpose the killing of human beings. It's not meant for recreational purposes. It can be used for the secondary purpose of recreation such as blasting the crap out of an old car body on a range. But the fact that it can be used for recreational purposes doesn't negate the primary purpose. Do you agree or not? If not, why not?

Or...the primary purpose of a fully automatic weapon is to defend human beings. It can be misused for murder, but the fact that it can be used for murder does not negate it's primary purpose.

Does the phrase "form follows function" mean anything to you?

You probably know it's an architectural saying but it's appropriate here.

Kalashnikov identified a necessary function for his famous weapon. He designed it to meet that function. The primary purpose is represented in the design. Kalashnikov probably didn't care that his weapon could be used for hammering in tent pegs, its purpose was to kill people.

You're confusing purpose with use, they're not the same. The purpose of a Kalashnikov is to kill people. It can be used to hammer in tent pegs, it can be used to belt people in the face with, it can be used to spray bullets at an old car body on a range. Its purpose isn't changed by temporary usage. Its purpose is in the mind of the designer, its purpose is to kill people. It can't be treated as a rather interesting hammer, even though it can be used as one, when it's plainly designed to kill people.

I think even Kalashnikov considered the purpose of his AK-47 to be one of protecting (Soviet) human beings.

So, again, purpose is not use. Purpose is the primary reason for design and construction. If Kalashnikov wrote a manual for his weapon I'd be surprised if he included a section on how to bash tent pegs into the ground.

I'd be surprised if he'd have a section on spraying bullets at children, or other misuses.

I suppose my larger point is that if you wish consider "need" to be the determinant factor in whether or not private citizens get fully automatic weapons, you can't deny one set of folks claiming "need" for such weapons, citing possible misuse while ignoring the possibility of misuse when you assert that another group "needs" them. If the government is empowered to have fully automatic weapons because it "needs" them to defend us from unjust aggression, we should not deny such weapons because they could be turned upon us (i.e. misused)--in turn, private citizens should not be denied fully automatic weapons just because they might be misused; the argument from "need" demands private owner ship of such weapons because they are "needed" to defend us from unjust aggression of the government (which has fully automatic weapons).

Kalashnikov was motivated to develop the AK-47 precisely because fully automatic weapons are "needed" by people facing aggressors who possess fully automatic weapons.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A little more reality.

The 2nd Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with hunting, recreational shooting or target practice. The purpose is clear and concise. The people have a n individual right to have weapons for the express purpose of forming armies. The reason is defense of community, State and Country. The enemy is anyone or thing that threatens said areas. Foreign or Domestic.

It further stipulates that the Individual States have a right to form, maintain and use militias. Not just "federalized" militias like the National Guard either.

Just because the Individual States have stopped availing themselves of the right to militias does not invalidate the right granted the Individual. The purpose of defense has not magically vanished, in fact it is more true today then ever before.

 

[Diuretic]

Loki I think you've just redone the bazooka argument. On your reasoning there should be no restriction on any citizen getting what they want. Should Bill Gates be able to build his own MS Army equipped with whatever weaponry he chooses to purchase and issue?

(Given the way Vista's going he may just want to do that )