Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

Bern

I have no idea what you're getting at. But don't reframe my argument for me and then tell me what I'm thinking. If you don't accept my argument, fine. But don't try and sell me a bag of crap and make try to me like it.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Yes they are, if misused.

The proper use of a motor vehicle or a private aircraft is to transport people.

The proper use of a fully automatic weapon is to kill scores of people.

That's the difference.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes they are, if misused.

The proper use of a motor vehicle or a private aircraft is to transport people.

The proper use of a fully automatic weapon is to kill scores of people.

That's the difference.

Wrong as usual. I can name aircraft and motor vehicles whose "purpose" is anything but transporting people and in fact is to "kill" people.

You can play all you want, the fact is that firearms are dangerous and THAT alone is why you do not think one has a "need" for them.

I have shown an absolute need for firearms in the hands of civilians in this country and any country for that matter. Self defense. Defense that applies even in the most robust democracy with the most numerous police and security.

One should never willingly depend solely on self defense to be provided by a "government". In all aspects of the term " self defense"

 

[Diuretic]

Wrong as usual. I can name aircraft and motor vehicles whose "purpose" is anything but transporting people and in fact is to "kill" people.

You can play all you want, the fact is that firearms are dangerous and THAT alone is why you do not think one has a "need" for them.

I have shown an absolute need for firearms in the hands of civilians in this country and any country for that matter. Self defense. Defense that applies even in the most robust democracy with the most numerous police and security.

One should never willingly depend solely on self defense to be provided by a "government". In all aspects of the term " self defense"

Which "privately owned" vehicles or "privately owned" aircraft have a purpose to kill people. No, let me guess. Someone owns a tank and someone owns a P-51 (of whatever variant). Yes? No?

Firearms are indeed dangerous. But I never said anywhere that because they are dangerous that's why they're not needed. Don't confuse me with someone who quakes when they see a firearm, even if it isn't being pointed at them.

I have pointed out that I'm not opposing firearms in civilian hands. I've said I support the notion of ccw. I support it because of the need for self defence.

Now, where does any of that attack my argument about fully automatic weapons being privately owned by civilians?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Which "privately owned" vehicles or "privately owned" aircraft have a purpose to kill people. No, let me guess. Someone owns a tank and someone owns a P-51 (of whatever variant). Yes? No?

Firearms are indeed dangerous. But I never said anywhere that because they are dangerous that's why they're not needed. Don't confuse me with someone who quakes when they see a firearm, even if it isn't being pointed at them.

I have pointed out that I'm not opposing firearms in civilian hands. I've said I support the notion of ccw. I support it because of the need for self defence.

Now, where does any of that attack my argument about fully automatic weapons being privately owned by civilians?

One can make a "need" argument for automatic weapons in the hands of civilians for the same reason they can the need for any firearm in their hands. AND again since we are discussing the United States you do not get to divorce the 2nd Amendment from the discussion. It is part an dparcel of any discussion IN the US on firearms.

You will find I agree the Government can and should regulate the access of fully automatic weapons in civilian hands, I have stated that repeatedly. However your "need" argument fails on every level in regards firearms ownership. and doubly so in the United States.

Now if we want to talk about need in a non specific manner, I agree, Governments should restrict ownership of fully automatic weapons.

 

[Diuretic]

One can make a "need" argument for automatic weapons in the hands of civilians for the same reason they can the need for any firearm in their hands. AND again since we are discussing the United States you do not get to divorce the 2nd Amendment from the discussion. It is part an dparcel of any discussion IN the US on firearms.

You will find I agree the Government can and should regulate the access of fully automatic weapons in civilian hands, I have stated that repeatedly. However your "need" argument fails on every level in regards firearms ownership. and doubly so in the United States.

Now if we want to talk about need in a non specific manner, I agree, Governments should restrict ownership of fully automatic weapons.

I think the need justification for an automatic weapon in the hands of civilians is going to be very difficult to prove. However I'm open to discussing it.

As far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned, I've stayed away from it for a couple of reasons. One is that it locates the general argument in a situation where a right to any firearm is assumed by those discussing it and they can point to the 2nd Amendment as justification for the argument. It isn't of course, but they would pull it in and use it as a bludgeon. Then we'd off down the well-trod path discussing whether the 2nd Amendment allows Americans to plant Claymores on that well-trod path. See my point? My other reason is that you know too much about it

But I still think my need argument holds water, haven't seen a leak in it yet.

I'm a bit disappointed some of my opponents think I'm being other than sincere in my arguments, but I can't help that.

Anyway, vesti la giubba!

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

False premise -- that you must face a legitimate threat from weapon X to show a 'need' to posess weapon X. If your premise was sound, then if the only threat I might ever face was a ball bat, then I would need only a ball bat for protection. This is based on the idea of porportional response, which is simple hooey.

If you are fighting for my life, you don't fight fair -- you "need" every advantage you can possibly have. Thus, the fact that there is a legitimate threat to my life, regardless of how that threat manifests itself, creates the "need" for automatic weapons.

Now in not-Whereverland, a society that is functional...

The only way your argument works is if "functional" means "no threat at all to anyone". This doesnt exist.

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

This is based on your false premise.

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... its undesirable.

Why?

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.

There is, as demonstrated above -- when fighting for your life, you "need" every advantage you can get.

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?

I'm sorry -- I thought you were going to restrict the argument to firearms.

 

[Bern80]

Bern

I have no idea what you're getting at. But don't reframe my argument for me and then tell me what I'm thinking. If you don't accept my argument, fine. But don't try and sell me a bag of crap and make try to me like it.

You all but stated that was your real argument. I asked the question why will you not allow me to own one thing I don't need, but will allow me to own another thing I don't need. To which you snidely replied, if I can't see the difference betwen the two then you can't help me. So obviously what ever that differnece is, is the basis of your argument.

That difference can't be need alone because if you take out all other variable and just base ownership on whether something is needed then you would have to disallow me ownership of many other thngs. This argument should be pretty easy to see is completely bullshit.

this is where you wove in your stupid as shit purpose argument. Your argument now is I don't need some object that's purpose is killing people. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Since I will be using for something other than killing it is completely irrelvant. That's why that argument doesn't work.

I don't know how to make it any simpler for you. I have explained the above several times to which you have been unable to justify it. Again it should be pretty easy to see that basing ownership on need alone is pretty silly so i would suggest moving past that.

Again your argument according to you: IF I'M NOT GOING TO USE AN AUTOMATIC TO TAKE HUMAN LIFE I SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE.

Tell me with a straight face that's makes a shred of sense.

 

[LOki]

Yep, if you live in Afghanistan or somewhere. But do you seriously mean that the average person in a western democracy needs to do that?

I'm not one to judge the needs of others as you do, but I'd say, yes.

I predict that you're going to go on about how improbable the need for a fully automatic weapon might be used by "the average person in a western democracy", and before you start down that path, I'd point out the nature of insurance. I'll give you a personal example where you would not object (I would hope) to my possesion of an item even though, according to your paradigm, I don't need it.

A fire extingusher in my car, and in my home.

According to you, I should be forcibly prohibited from possessing one because I don't need one. I don't need one, because neither my house, or my car are on fire right now; neither my house or my car have ever been on fire; and the likelihood that they will be on fire in the future is as low as it has been in the past, thus very unlikely.

Also, I have no duty to anyone but myself to put out a fire, thus I cannot need a fire extinguisher; and I am not trained in fire-fighting, and therefore cannot need a fire extinguisher. Besides, there's a perfectly good fire department close by, who have a duty to put out fires, and thus are the only folks who need fire extinguishers; and they are highly trained in fire-fighting, so they surely must need fire extinguishers.

According to your argument from "need" my fire extinguishers should be forcibly (if neccessary) confiscated, and I should be declared a criminal for possessing a fire extinguisher (unless it's "registered" and I'm "licensed" to protect my life and property from fire), and arrested for my patently "criminal" activity.

The point is, despite "need" being a valid criterion to have something, an individual's lack of "need" of something is not sufficent criteria to prohibit and/or criminalize possesion of that thing--whatever that thing might be. Your fatuosly limited notions of "need" just make the alredy weak argument from need rediculously weak.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually I haven't seen that Diuretic has been opposing the concept of owning certain weapons as much as he is questioning the concept of a claim that we NEED such weapons. Not that I think the question of "need" is the issue; but then I'm not sure he is saying that the concept of "need" is the issue either. It is more a question of honesty in our motives for wanting anything.

From my own perspective, I am a HUGE supporter of Second Amendment rights, and I wouldn't worry if somebody I knew to be responsible and law abiding had a nuclear weapon in his garage. But there are also some people I don't think should be trusted with a potato gun.

That brings us back to the issue of what, if any, regulations and/or restrictions should be applicable re ownership of certain weapons? How can such regulation be effected without depriving the sane and responsible of their Second Amendment rights?

The question of 'need' I deemed moot quite some time back.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That brings us back to the issue of what, if any, regulations and/or restrictions should be applicable re ownership of certain weapons? How can such regulation be effected without depriving the sane and responsible of their Second Amendment rights?

Any regulation/restriction that does not infringe on the right...

 

[Diuretic]

Actually I haven't seen that Diuretic has been opposing the concept of owning certain weapons as much as he is questioning the concept of a claim that we NEED such weapons. Not that I think the question of "need" is the issue; but then I'm not sure he is saying that the concept of "need" is the issue either. It is more a question of honesty in our motives for wanting anything.

From my own perspective, I am a HUGE supporter of Second Amendment rights, and I wouldn't worry if somebody I knew to be responsible and law abiding had a nuclear weapon in his garage. But there are also some people I don't think should be trusted with a potato gun.

That brings us back to the issue of what, if any, regulations and/or restrictions should be applicable re ownership of certain weapons? How can such regulation be effected without depriving the sane and responsible of their Second Amendment rights?

The question of 'need' I deemed moot quite some time back.

I am using the idea of necessity and not right and I think that's what's confused and upset my objectors. It's far easier to argue that there's a right to full autos because of the wording of the 2nd Amendment because all someone thinks they have to do is point to it and that's it, game over.

Take the 2nd Amendment out of it and the argument becomes more complex. That's why I've seen such muddled thinking, obfuscation, intellectual dishonesty and downright humorous crankiness from my objectors. When they're face with having to prove justification they lose it and spin off into all sorts of fantasy arguments and plain illogical statements.

It's been instructive.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am using the idea of necessity and not right and I think that's what's confused and upset my objectors. It's far easier to argue that there's a right to full autos because of the wording of the 2nd Amendment because all someone thinks they have to do is point to it and that's it, game over.

Take the 2nd Amendment out of it and the argument becomes more complex. That's why I've seen such muddled thinking, obfuscation, intellectual dishonesty and downright humorous crankiness from my objectors. When they're face with having to prove justification they lose it and spin off into all sorts of fantasy arguments and plain illogical statements.

It's been instructive.

Once again you can not take the 2nd amendment out of it when discussing ownership of firearms in the United States.

 

[BrianH]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravir
I'm not following you.

The argument on this thread seems to be that we as individuals should have automatic weapons because there either a) shouldn't be a restriction on what type of weapons we have or b) should have them because the government, i.e. the military and police have them. Also, it seems to be argued that we must be capable of fending off a government gone wild. So if this government has nukes, should we not also have nukes?

Yes. <---(LOKIS RESPONSE)

Forgive me for misinterpreting.-------------bark bark.

 

[Diuretic]

Once again you can not take the 2nd amendment out of it when discussing ownership of firearms in the United States.

Then I'll feel free to discuss it.

 

[BrianH]

Then I'll feel free to discuss it.

I understand you're logic with need...but it's not something that we as Americans are used to. You want it, you can get it...the American way.
While I don't beleive that U.S. citizens should own nukes like some posters, I feel that if a criminal wants to get his/her hands on a fully automatic machine gun, he/she can do it with no problems. So why shouldn't a law-abiding civilian be able to defend him/herself with a fully automatic machine-gun.
IMO, a civilian can show need for owning a fully automatic machine-gun by needing it to protect themselves against criminals with fully automatic machine-guns...especially down here in South Texas...where the drug cartels have been battling border agents as well as the Mexican police and military with RPG's, Fully-Automatic Machine-Guns, grenades, etc...

It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it IMO.

 

[Bern80]

I am using the idea of necessity and not right and I think that's what's confused and upset my objectors. It's far easier to argue that there's a right to full autos because of the wording of the 2nd Amendment because all someone thinks they have to do is point to it and that's it, game over.

Take the 2nd Amendment out of it and the argument becomes more complex. That's why I've seen such muddled thinking, obfuscation, intellectual dishonesty and downright humorous crankiness from my objectors. When they're face with having to prove justification they lose it and spin off into all sorts of fantasy arguments and plain illogical statements.

It's been instructive.

Loki brought up an excellent argument that surprise, surprise, you have not attempted to reconcile with your position.

I for one am disregarding the 2nd ammendment as part of this argument. I think you know by now quite well that am arguing against you bs neccessity argument. YOU are the one that needs to justify that and up to this point you haven't come even close. Illogical? Here's your argument AGAIN accoridng to you:

If you're not going to use an automatic to take human life (it's purpose according to you), you shouldn't be allowed to have one.

Perhaps you could point out the logic in that. I have stared a million times now why you can't argue this from a necessity stand point alone. You have stated several times that you are arguing necessity alone. To me that means where your opinion is concerned there are no other variables at play other than do you need this object or don't you. In very plain english this is why that argument doesn't work:

1) If need really truly is the only variable you are considering that would require you to ban ownership of all kinds of other things one doesn't truly need.

2) to which you made the really illogical argument if i want to play videogames I need a PS3 and thus arrived at the wholly illogical creating need out of want. That doesn't work because I want to target shoot with an automatic, so by that argument alone you would have to let me have one.

3) to which you became even more illogical in your asanine purpose argument that really all I can derive is that if I'm not going to use something for it's intended purpose I should be alloed to have it. in which case you would need to ban from owning a PS3 used as a paperweight.

4) and this is the argument havent' even attempted to combat, it is completely irrelevant what your perceived purpose of an automatic is since at the end of the day I'm the one deciding what it will be used for.

Don't even think about comeing in here and talking about how illogical people are being when yours is the most illlogical, incoherent, comepletely void of legitimate justification argument that has been posted anywhere in some time.

 

[Diuretic]

I understand you're logic with need...but it's not something that we as Americans are used to. You want it, you can get it...the American way.
While I don't beleive that U.S. citizens should own nukes like some posters, I feel that if a criminal wants to get his/her hands on a fully automatic machine gun, he/she can do it with no problems. So why shouldn't a law-abiding civilian be able to defend him/herself with a fully automatic machine-gun.
IMO, a civilian can show need for owning a fully automatic machine-gun by needing it to protect themselves against criminals with fully automatic machine-guns...especially down here in South Texas...where the drug cartels have been battling border agents as well as the Mexican police and military with RPG's, Fully-Automatic Machine-Guns, grenades, etc...

It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it IMO.

You said that if a criminal get get a full auto firearm then a law-abiding civilian should also be able to get one.
But if criminals - terrorists for example - can get nukes then using your argument everyone should be able to have a nuke.
You've indicated that you don't agree with everyone having a nuke. Why not?

 

[Diuretic]

Loki brought up an excellent argument that surprise, surprise, you have not attempted to reconcile with your position.

I for one am disregarding the 2nd ammendment as part of this argument. I think you know by now quite well that am arguing against you bs neccessity argument. YOU are the one that needs to justify that and up to this point you haven't come even close. Illogical? Here's your argument AGAIN accoridng to you:

If you're not going to use an automatic to take human life (it's purpose according to you), you shouldn't be allowed to have one.

Perhaps you could point out the logic in that. I have stared a million times now why you can't argue this from a necessity stand point alone. You have stated several times that you are arguing necessity alone. To me that means where your opinion is concerned there are no other variables at play other than do you need this object or don't you. In very plain english this is why that argument doesn't work:

1) If need really truly is the only variable you are considering that would require you to ban ownership of all kinds of other things one doesn't truly need.

2) to which you made the really illogical argument if i want to play videogames I need a PS3 and thus arrived at the wholly illogical creating need out of want. That doesn't work because I want to target shoot with an automatic, so by that argument alone you would have to let me have one.

3) to which you became even more illogical in your asanine purpose argument that really all I can derive is that if I'm not going to use something for it's intended purpose I should be alloed to have it. in which case you would need to ban from owning a PS3 used as a paperweight.

4) and this is the argument havent' even attempted to combat, it is completely irrelevant what your perceived purpose of an automatic is since at the end of the day I'm the one deciding what it will be used for.

Don't even think about comeing in here and talking about how illogical people are being when yours is the most illlogical, incoherent, comepletely void of legitimate justification argument that has been posted anywhere in some time.

Why do you constantly tell me what my argument is? And you reframe it as well into the bargain? If you can't counter the argument then admit it, but stop reframing it and throwing it at me, it's unseemly.

 

[Bern80]

Why do you constantly tell me what my argument is? And you reframe it as well into the bargain? If you can't counter the argument then admit it, but stop reframing it and throwing it at me, it's unseemly.

i'm not reframing it. The second paragraph is your words almost verbatim. Certain arguments have ramifications on other arguments.

You have stated your argument is necessity and necessity only. You have somewhat attempted to redefine that word to fit your argument, but the fact is either you need something or your don't and you can't create a need for something out of an activity you only want to do.

Please try to follow this and please, for once, actually attempt to constructibvely respond to it.

let's assume that it has shown to be true for a second that necessity is your only argument. That should put all objects, not just automatic weapons on an even playing field because if we're ONLY talking neccessity then there are no other vatriables in a play other than do I need this thing or not. That is why I ask is need really the only variable you are arguing?

you can claim I'm reframing your argument all you want, but the proof is from your own mouth. You claimed your argument is need. At the same time you also stated that i can't see the difference between a PS3 and an automatic. So clearly there is some other variable at play where your decision to allow one and not the other is concerend because if we really truly are talking need alone then you shoud not allow me either of those things.

Again by your own admission Diuretic, there is clearly more than the issue of need at play where this issue is concerned. Without some other factor in the decision making progress your argument simply does not allow you to grant me ownership of some thing I dont' need and not grant me ownership of other things.