Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

We're back to the need vs. rights.

We don't NEED freedom of speech. But it is our right in this country, and we are entitled to exercise it at will, as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others.

We don't NEED to bear arms. But we have the right to, and we are entitled to exercise it at will, as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others.

Who are you to tell anybody what they should or should not own, as long as they aren't violating your rights?

Write this down and put it on your monitor for fututre reference.

I am not addressing rights.

Thank you, you can go now.

 

[Diuretic]

Police are starting to issue larger caliber rifles and automatics to certain police in some cities.

No doubt in response to criminals who have access to superior arms. Not a nice thought.

 

[AllieBaba]

There's no "need" for civilians to wear revealing clothing, to own horses or trucks or houses, as far as that goes.

But we get to, anyway. We have a constitution to protect us from power mad lunatics who think they get to tell people what to wear, drive, eat and own.

 

[Diuretic]

No offemse, but your lack of imagination as the cornerstone of your argument doesnt do much for the soundness of your argument.

I cannot imagine never being. Thus, there -must- be an afterlife.


Abstract or practical, the effect is the same:
When your life is on the line, you NEED the most effective weapon you can get. In terms of firearms, that will always be an automatic weapon.


You already conceded that semi-auto rifles are "ok" to own.
I can do anything with an M16 that I can do with an AR15.
The reverse is not true.

How about you address my point concerning "need", because that's where we are now.

 

[Diuretic]

Once again, who are you to dictate what "needs" or "wants" we are allowed to address?
It's a right, and as a right, it has nothing to do with need. It's there for us, if we want it. Or if we need it. Better to not need and have, than to need and not have.

And there are lots of people out there who love and are fascinated by weaponry, and who enjoy owning and using them legally. You think you have the right to tell them what is a valid hobby and what isn't?

Ta da! I'm not addressing rights, as I just said. I'm being nice because you're still catching up. But the clock is ticking.

 

[Diuretic]

There's no "need" for civilians to wear revealing clothing, to own horses or trucks or houses, as far as that goes.

But we get to, anyway. We have a constitution to protect us from power mad lunatics who think they get to tell people what to wear, drive, eat and own.

Take it to another thread, I'll be happy to discuss it, but don't derail the discussion.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes, you are. Because what you're suggesting is that rights be curtailed because there's no "need", and "need" is being defined by your own perception.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How about you address my point concerning "need", because that's where we are now.

I have been addressing it.
I have addressed it several times, in several different ways.

You're talking about probability of an event, not the necessity of a weapon.
Whatver level of probability you might care to assign to a situation were you "need" a firearm to protect yourself doesnt in any way negate the fact that the most effective firearm for such situations is an atuomatic weapon.

You've already coceeded that you - the generic, civilian you - might "need" a handgun or a shotgun for prtection, therefore conceeding that there is some real, legitimate probability of same. Having admitted that, you cannot logically get past the point that, since if you "need" a gun, you "need" the most effective gun you can get, there is a "need" for automatic weapons.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, you are. Because what you're suggesting is that rights be curtailed because there's no "need", and "need" is being defined by your own perception.

No, you're either misinterpreting my argument or plain obfuscating.

I'm not suggesting rights be curtailed because there's no need. I don't see rights and needs as being correlated in this discussion. If you want a big thread on the 2nd Amendment, start one, but stop derailing this one.

 

[Diuretic]

I have been addressing it.
I have addressed it several times, in several different ways.

You're talking about probability of an event, not the necessity of a weapon.
Whatver level of probability you might care to assign to a situation were you "need" a firearm to protect yourself doesnt in any way negate the fact that the most effective firearm for such situations is an atuomatic weapon.

You've already coceeded that you - the generic, civilian you - might "need" a handgun or a shotgun for prtection, therefore conceeding that there is some real, legitimate probability of same. Having admitted that, you cannot logically get past the point that, since if you "need" a gun, you "need" the most effective gun you can get, there is a "need" for automatic weapons.

At last, something to work with.

On probability. Yes I am referring to probability, that's so. If there was a very high probability of the average citizen (in Whereverland) being attacked by people armed with fully automatic weapons I would say that there's a need for someone to be armed with a fully automatic weapon in response. In other words there would be a need.

Now in not-Whereverland, a society that is functional, unlike my fictional Whereverland, the need is limited to the military and certain police units because the probability of attack by people with full autos is higher for the military than a civilian, hence greater need (I'll leave the CT police out of this to save time, effort and space but will bring them up if challenged on it).

In the US, is your society resembling Whereverland yet? If it ever does, then I would agree, there would be a need for full autos.

In my country, which is my frame of reference of course, it's nowhere near Whereverland, hence no need for full autos by civilians.

Your second point. In public policy terms it's not a good idea to have all civilians able to get legal access to full autos. Not only is there no need (absent the Whereverland scenario), it's undesirable.

As for your argument that you need a full auto because you need a handgun - I'm sorry, I just can't take that seriously because there's no logic to it. Using your rationale I could defend hand grenades for individuals, you're just extrapolating to a point which is convenient for you but which doesn't bear up under examination. So, let me ask you a question. In your extrapolation from handgun to full auto, do you consider that you can go past full auto to much more powerful weapons. I think bazookas have been mentioned. But let's go further. Why not tactical nuclear weapons? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[AllieBaba]

No, you're either misinterpreting my argument or plain obfuscating.

I'm not suggesting rights be curtailed because there's no need. I don't see rights and needs as being correlated in this discussion. If you want a big thread on the 2nd Amendment, start one, but stop derailing this one.

Read the title of the thread, nitwit.

 

[Diuretic]

Read the title of the thread, nitwit.

Watch your language.

You wouldn't understand that the thread has evolved.

 

[AllieBaba]

Or been hijacked, and not by me.

And my point is perfectly relevant. Whether or not we NEED something has nothing to do with whether or not we should, or have a right, to own it.

 

[Bern80]

Obtuse? That's polite for "dense" isn't it? And give me a break, afraid to say what I really mean? What the hell do you think I've been doing? Can I get any clearer?

And if you can't see the difference between a person being allowed to own a video games console and a person being allowed to own a fully automatic weapon then I can't help you, I don't have the therapeutic skills.

Like I said, i know the answer to that and you do. So why don't you just humor me and tell me why I am allowed to OWN a PS3 I don't need and not allowed to OWN an automatic weapons which I don't need.

As for your being allowed to have one, see the thread. I'm still putting the very simple, straightforward and completely transparent reason as - you have no need for one unless you're in the military or a police CT unit - or you want to head down to the range and take apart a car body with a squirt gun.

Can you process those ideas?

No I'm afraid I can't process completely ass backwards thinking. Here is another argument you don't get to shimmy out of. Along with need you have also argued several times now that somehow this perceived purpose somehow has some bearing on whether I should be allowed to have an automatic. I simply want to know why that is.

 

[Diuretic]

Or been hijacked, and not by me.

And my point is perfectly relevant. Whether or not we NEED something has nothing to do with whether or not we should, or have a right, to own it.

If Lamarck was right, it would be a hijack; I prefer to think in Darwinian terms, it evolved.

I can tell you this - the stronger an objective need, the more likely you'd have a right. There's a connection you can think about for homework.

 

[Diuretic]

Like I said, i know the answer to that and you do. So why don't you just humor me and tell me why I am allowed to OWN a PS3 I don't need and not allowed to OWN an automatic weapons which I don't need

It's slowly starting to dawn....

You can own a PS3 even though you don't need it because the PS3 is a video game console for playing video games....you can't privately own a fully automatic weapon because it is for killing people and unless you have a need to kill people then you can't have one.

Along with need you have also argued several times now that somehow this perceived purpose somehow has some bearing on whether I should be allowed to have an automatic. I simply want to know why that is.

The PS3 console was designed to play video games. The Kalashnikov was designed to kill people. See above.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If Lamarck was right, it would be a hijack; I prefer to think in Darwinian terms, it evolved.

I can tell you this - the stronger an objective need, the more likely you'd have a right. There's a connection you can think about for homework.

We have a VERY objective reason for needing weapons. Self defense, Defense of Community and defense of Country. It is as strong to day as it was over 200 years ago.

It is painfully obvious to the most casual of observer that the police can NOT protect us. Further it is evident that the military will not always be around.

The 2nd is as relevant today as it was when the Amendment was proposed passed and voted on.

 

[Diuretic]

We have a VERY objective reason for needing weapons. Self defense, Defense of Community and defense of Country. It is as strong to day as it was over 200 years ago.

It is painfully obvious to the most casual of observer that the police can NOT protect us. Further it is evident that the military will not always be around.

The 2nd is as relevant today as it was when the Amendment was proposed passed and voted on.

While I take your point I have to say I wasn't referencing how the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted.

I agree that the police can't protect individuals and as you would be aware, that's not their job. The theory is that having a police force adds to the deterrent power of the criminal justice system (the very reason for the creation of the New Police of the metropolis in 1829 in London) but sadly in many places it's not much of a deterrent and people definitely do have to look after themselves. That's why I (not that my opinion amounts to anything) support ccw.

I just don't support SA/LW carry for civilians that's all.

 

[Bern80]

It's slowly starting to dawn....

You can own a PS3 even though you don't need it because the PS3 is a video game console for playing video games....you can't privately own a fully automatic weapon because it is for killing people and unless you have a need to kill people then you can't have one.

That is seriously a logical train of thought in your world? I serioulsy have never seen someone have to dance so much to make an argument work. You have stated that you accept people can use things in manner that doesn't reflect there intended purpose. Yet by this argument you would be required to not allow me ownership of a PS3 if I wanted to use it as a paperweight as I am not using it for it's intended purpose. By your argument I shuold not be legally permitted to have one.

I really thought you could figure this out but apparenty you can't. So I will hand you your real argument on a silver platter.

the reason why you won't allow me to have an automatic that I don't need, but will allow me a PS3 I don't need has nothing to do with needing either of those things. It has nothing to do with this hair brained using something for it's intended purpose argument either. You tried to be a condescending ass instead of answer the question by saying "if you can't see the differece between a PS3 and an automatic you need therapy" when what I've been trying to get you to see all along is what YOU see as the difference between a PS3 and an automatic. And that is DANGER. THAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT.

Now please get the fuck off of the completely non-sensical need and purpose arguments. The basis of your argument really is that you perceive an automatic to be more dangerous than a PS3. That is what it is at the basis of you allowing me a PS3 I don't need but not allowing me an automatic I dont' need. It is also what is at the basis of your even more illogical purpose argument. The activity of killing people is more dangerous than the activity of playing videogames.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet we should have a privately owned motor vehicle. Or a privately owned aircraft. Both highly complex dangerous vehicles capable of killing scores of people.