Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[BrianH]

"I'm assering that if you did kill someone at 500 yards with birdshot, they'd be just as dead as if you killed them by any other method, or with any other weapon"

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't hit his ass when he jumped.

As for the rest, if you're already aware, then don't pick it apart and post an argument.
If you can afford a howitzer, than I'm glad one of us can.

 

[manifold]

My argument is based simply on need. Despite repeated attempts to reframe my argument, it’s still there. It’s based on need. The military needs fully automatic weapons. Some police need fully automatic weapons. Non-police civilians and the overwhelming number of civilian police don’t need fully automatic weapons. That’s my argument.

Actually, that's just an opinion. You haven't actually stated anything in support of it such that I'd consider it an argument.

You say what need does a civilian have to own automatic weapons? I say to engage in military conflict should circumstance require it. It's as simple as that.

 

[Shogun]

and, i mean.. lets be honest.. this is healthy american entertainment


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6107348969407029625

 

[Bern80]

I'm not referencing the 2nd Amendment anywhere in my argument so we can put that aside. I'm not addressing the "right" to bear arms, I'm referring to civilian use and ownership of fully automatic weapons.

My argument is based simply on need. Despite repeated attempts to reframe my argument, it’s still there. It’s based on need. The military needs fully automatic weapons. Some police need fully automatic weapons. Non-police civilians and the overwhelming number of civilian police don’t need fully automatic weapons. That’s my argument.

Really some of the arguments here are to the point of fantastic. It's not difficult, just address my argument instead of constructing fantasy worlds to bolster your own arguments.

I did and you have to come up with any reasonable rebuttal (see post 293). Now ypur argument is only need? Of what relevance is what you think I need and don't need to the argument of whether I should be allowed an automatic?

 

[Foxfyre]

I did and you have to come up with any reasonable rebuttal (see post 293). Now ypur argument is only need? Of what relevance is what you think I need and don't need to the argument of whether I should be allowed an automatic?

This is the crux of the whole thing though you didn't exactly specify it here. (You might have in another post--this thread is moving pretty fast and its hard to keep up. The crux is personal freedom versus the government assuming license to tell us what we may and may not have.

Do we want the government to have the right to tell us that we don't NEED a Hummer or a Suburban and therefore we won't be allowed to own one; we'll have to make do with a Hyundai or Ford Focus?

Do we want the government to have the right to tell us how many light bulbs can be operational in our homes or the size of furnace we will be permitted to buy because we don't NEED more bulbs or don't need a larger furnace?

Somewhere in there, the same kind of logic applies as to whether we should be able to have an automatic just because we want one irregardless of whatever our needs might be.

Then again, there's still the problem of my neighbor who gets crazy drunk on Saturday nights. The idea of him having that automatic is not comforting.

 

[AllieBaba]

What reason is there for an American citizen to own a boat, or a vibrator, or a dvd player?

No reason at all, except they want them.

If a person wants a cannon, they should be allowed to have one, as long as they aren't violating the rights of others with it.

And if we become a citizenry that does not have access to weapons comparable to the weapons of our police, we're in a sad, sad place.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually, that's just an opinion. You haven't actually stated anything in support of it such that I'd consider it an argument.

You say what need does a civilian have to own automatic weapons? I say to engage in military conflict should circumstance require it. It's as simple as that.

Of course it's an opinion, I haven't tried to suggest anything else.

On your point about civilian need - if the military is in place and if various police and law enforcement bodies are in place then it seems to me that the possibility of the average citizen being required (short of the draft) to be involved in military conflict is close to zero. But I do have to point out that it appears you've agreed with me. That a military need is the only justification for the ownership and use of fully automatic weapons.

So, given that then short of a full blown invasion on the US where the military couldn't repel said invasion (extremely unlikely), there appears to be no need for a civilian (except for specialist civilian police) to own a fully automatic weapon.

 

[Diuretic]

I did and you have to come up with any reasonable rebuttal (see post 293). Now ypur argument is only need? Of what relevance is what you think I need and don't need to the argument of whether I should be allowed an automatic?

I've been constant in that part of the argument. I've just posted the argument again. My argument has been need all along, go back and read my posts. Where someone else was drifting off into fantasy I tried to keep up with their mental gymnastics, but all along I've done my best to keep on point, which is need.

 

[Shogun]

hehehe..

Alliebaba said Vibrator.

 

[AllieBaba]

I was referring to you!

 

[Bern80]

I've been constant in that part of the argument. I've just posted the argument again. My argument has been need all along, go back and read my posts. Where someone else was drifting off into fantasy I tried to keep up with their mental gymnastics, but all along I've done my best to keep on point, which is need.

And all along I (along with others now) have been pointing out that 'need' does not work as an argument. It is hypocritical to allow me have some things I don't need and not others. There aren't an mental gymnastics at work here. You picked an argument that doesn't withstand a shred a scrutiny or have any validity and at the end of the day this arbitrary line you have drawn is just that, purely arbitrary.

And say at as much you like, but NO your're main point isn't really 'need' at all. If that's all it was you would have to see how collosely arbitrary and hypocritcal it is to say it's okay for you to have this thing you DON'T need, but not this thing. You're argument REQUIRES that you justify not allowing onwership of an automatic (which I don't need) but allowing my ownership of a PS3 (which I also don't need). You have failed to do that so far. But if you can come up with that justification you will find what your real argument is.

 

[LOki]

And all along I (along with others now) have been pointing out that 'need' does not work as an argument. It is hypocritical to allow me have some things I don't need and not others. There aren't an mental gymnastics at work here. You picked an argument that doesn't withstand a shred a scrutiny or have any validity and at the end of the day this arbitrary line you have drawn is just that, purely arbitrary.

And say at as much you like, but NO your're main point isn't really 'need' at all. If that's all it was you would have to see how collosely arbitrary and hypocritcal it is to say it's okay for you to have this thing you DON'T need, but not this thing. You're argument REQUIRES that you justify not allowing onwership of an automatic (which I don't need) but allowing my ownership of a PS3 (which I also don't need). You have failed to do that so far. But if you can come up with that justification you will find what you're really argument is.

I agree with this.

It has also been pointed out that regular civilians "need" fully automatic weaopns for the precise reasons that the police and the military "need" them--which is that these regular citizens might face others with fully automatic weapons that intend to do them harm.

 

[Diuretic]

And all along I (along with others now) have been pointing out that 'need' does not work as an argument. It is hypocritical to allow me have some things I don't need and not others. There aren't an mental gymnastics at work here. You picked an argument that doesn't withstand a shred a scrutiny or have any validity and at the end of the day this arbitrary line you have drawn is just that, purely arbitrary.

And say at as much you like, but NO your're main point isn't really 'need' at all. If that's all it was you would have to see how collosely arbitrary and hypocritcal it is to say it's okay for you to have this thing you DON'T need, but not this thing. You're argument REQUIRES that you justify not allowing onwership of an automatic (which I don't need) but allowing my ownership of a PS3 (which I also don't need). You have failed to do that so far. But if you can come up with that justification you will find what your real argument is.

I've had enough of the topic now. This is getting ridiculous. I don't see this in terms of winning and losing and I think you do so best of luck to you with it.

 

[Diuretic]

I agree with this.

It has also been pointed out that regular civilians "need" fully automatic weaopns for the precise reasons that the police and the military "need" them--which is that these regular citizens might face others with fully automatic weapons that intend to do them harm.

I think that's a fantasy argument but you're entitled to it.

 

[LOki]

I think that's a fantasy argument but you're entitled to it.

Nonsense. The math is simple:

If a military "needs" fully automatic weapons because they are effective for the purposes of subduing their opponents, then civilians "need" fully automatic weapons because they are effective for the purposes of defending themselves against a military aggressor.

If the police "need" fully automatic weapons because they are effective for the purposes of defending themselves against criminals with fully automatic weapons, then civilians "need" fully automatic weapons because they are effective for the purposes of defending themselves against criminals with fully automatic weapons.

The actual fantasy argument lies in the patent denial of sense which asserts wearing a uniform or being a criminal are the sole criteria by which the "need" for keeping and bearing fully automatic weapons is established.

 

[Diuretic]

Nonsense. The math is simple:

If a military "needs" fully automatic weapons because they are effective for the purposes of subduing their opponents, then civilians "need" fully automatic weapons because they are effective for the purposes of defending themselves against a military aggressor.

If the police "need" fully automatic weapons because they are effective for the purposes of defending themselves against criminals with fully automatic weapons, then civilians "need" fully automatic weapons because they are effective for the purposes of defending themselves against criminals with fully automatic weapons.

The actual fantasy argument lies in the patent denial of sense which asserts wearing a uniform or being a criminal are the sole criteria by which the "need" for keeping and bearing fully automatic weapons is established.

Wearing a uniform or being a criminal? You're doing a disservice to my argument and to the military and to the police (not necessarily in that order).

Being in the military is not "wearing a uniform". It's far more than "wearing a uniform". What separates the civilian from the solider is a sense of duty. The duty of the military is to defend the state, the polity and all parts of it, from domestic and foreign enemies. That is a duty. The civilian has no duty except to him or herself. The military needs fully automatic weapons to carry out that duty. Any military (or non-military) aggressor against the state is met by the military of the state, not a bunch of untrained but highly armed civilians. Being in the military is a vocation, a voluntary service to country in the understanding that, if required, one's life will be laid down as part of that duty. That is not "wearing a uniform". While there exists a military there is no need for a civilian to have a fully automatic weapon because the civilian can't displace the soldier.

The other argument, about civilian police, I was at pains to point out was primarily for counter-terrorist operations by specialised units. General duties civilian police don't need to have fully automatic weapons. If offenders with fully automatic weapons have to be confronted then the specialist unit I referred to can be called in. While the police are in a position to defend domestic interests from terrorism or from criminals armed with fully automatic weapons then the civilian, again untrained in these duties, doesn't need a fully automatic weapon.

There is no mathematical formula here, only simple logic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Already have.

Ah. The usual cop-out from someone that cannot support their position.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And what are they and why are they invalid? I'd appreciate a chance to respond to your claims.

I touched in this.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=660887&postcount=269

You try to invalidate civilian posession of automatic weapons based on the idea that some weapons are made for recreation and some for killing people. Given that, here, the right to arms is all about killing people, that's an invalid argument.

 

[Bern80]

I've had enough of the topic now. This is getting ridiculous. I don't see this in terms of winning and losing and I think you do so best of luck to you with it.

What's ridiculous is that you have gone a dozen posts or so without comeing even close to offering a justification as to why 'need' is a valid reason to disallow ownership of somehting. You say your argument is basic and straightforward. That should make it pretty easy to defend.

I don't see it in terms of winning of losing, but I am very passionate about the issue. And if enough people start seeing things your way, indeed something will be lost.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ah. The usual cop-out from someone that cannot support their position.

Ah, as usual, dismissing an argument because you do not like the fact it doesn't agree with you.

Get another line , this one is old and used up.