Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

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?

I have a house full of stuff. It could be said I don't need it. But I do. If I want to open a can of food I need a can-opener to do it. I could do without a can-opener but it would mean I couldn't buy any canned food. Because I choose to have cannned food then I need a can-opener.

I was thinking about that when I made mention of recreational firearms use. I choose to go and shoot at target, I need a firearm to do so. I could do without a firearm but that would mean I couldn't go target-shooting. Because I choose to go target-shooting then I need a firearm.

That's my thinking on need. Maybe we can sort it from there.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have a house full of stuff. It could be said I don't need it. But I do. If I want to open a can of food I need a can-opener to do it. I could do without a can-opener but it would mean I couldn't buy any canned food. Because I choose to have cannned food then I need a can-opener.

I was thinking about that when I made mention of recreational firearms use. I choose to go and shoot at target, I need a firearm to do so. I could do without a firearm but that would mean I couldn't go target-shooting. Because I choose to go target-shooting then I need a firearm.

That's my thinking on need. Maybe we can sort it from there.

Ahh so, since I WANT to shoot recreationally a fully automatic rifle, I there for have a NEED for said weapon.

Since criminals have fully automatic weapons, and I want to protect myself, I have a NEED for a fully automatic weapon.

Since Joe Blow is a bad shot while hunting and wants to bag a deer he NEEDS a fully automatic rifle.

As for your can opener you actually DO need one. Or a big heavy Knife like a K-Bar.

 

[Diuretic]

Ahh so, since I WANT to shoot recreationally a fully automatic rifle, I there for have a NEED for said weapon.

Since criminals have fully automatic weapons, and I want to protect myself, I have a NEED for a fully automatic weapon.

Since Joe Blow is a bad shot while hunting and wants to bag a deer he NEEDS a fully automatic rifle.

As for your can opener you actually DO need one. Or a big heavy Knife like a K-Bar.

Joe Blow is obviously interested in getting venison hamburger?

If you want to shoot a full automatic you can, you can go to a range where they have them, shoot up a car body and leave feeling satisfied. You don't need to own one.

The knife is designed for cutting and stabbing and not opening cans, it will of course, but that's an adaptive use, best to get a can-opener.

On criminals. Yes they're out there for sure. And since the police aren't able to protect you then you should be able to protect yourself from the possibility of an attack. You probably need a firearm in that case. But do you need a full auto? What is the probability of your facing an attack by a machine-gun wielding criminal? Does it happen a lot to people where you are? Is there a need to protect yourself from machine-gun wielding criminals?

I suppose we can discuss the 2nd Amendment too, but, as I said, I don't know much about it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Joe Blow is obviously interested in getting venison hamburger?

If you want to shoot a full automatic you can, you can go to a range where they have them, shoot up a car body and leave feeling satisfied. You don't need to own one.

The knife is designed for cutting and stabbing and not opening cans, it will of course, but that's an adaptive use, best to get a can-opener.

On criminals. Yes they're out there for sure. And since the police aren't able to protect you then you should be able to protect yourself from the possibility of an attack. You probably need a firearm in that case. But do you need a full auto? What is the probability of your facing an attack by a machine-gun wielding criminal? Does it happen a lot to people where you are? Is there a need to protect yourself from machine-gun wielding criminals?

I suppose we can discuss the 2nd Amendment too, but, as I said, I don't know much about it.

You stated as a starting point that because you want to fire a gun recreationally you have a NEED for a gun. Why now is it, if you want to fire an automatic you do NOT have a need?

And you will find you can not just go to a range and rent a fully automatic weapon. Our strict laws pretty much prevent that. Not to mention in 13 States it is totally illegal for civilians to ever own a fully automatic weapon.

I used YOUR starting point and provided logical "needs" in the same vein you claimed we could start from. And I did not address the second at all.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

And... your entire position is based on a false premise, thus rendering it utterly unsound.

 

[Diuretic]

You stated as a starting point that because you want to fire a gun recreationally you have a NEED for a gun. Why now is it, if you want to fire an automatic you do NOT have a need?

And you will find you can not just go to a range and rent a fully automatic weapon. Our strict laws pretty much prevent that. Not to mention in 13 States it is totally illegal for civilians to ever own a fully automatic weapon.

I used YOUR starting point and provided logical "needs" in the same vein you claimed we could start from. And I did not address the second at all.

I don't understand your first question. I did state that if a want was recreational shooting there was a need for a firearm, yes, that's right. And I did say that if that recreational shooting involved use of a full auto then that need could be satisfied by going to a range where they could fire a full auto. But that's not an approval of private ownership of a full auto. I said I don't see a need for private ownership of a full auto.

You can't fire a full auto at a range? I haven't done it but I was sure there were ranges in Honolulu where you could fire full autos.

 

[Diuretic]

And... your entire position is based on a false premise, thus rendering it utterly unsound.

What's the false premise? What's my argument? Why is it unsound?

 

[Diuretic]

Just for a diversion - don't know how true it is

http://leeinchina.com/index.php/site/comments/shoot_em_up/

 

[M14 Shooter]

What's the false premise? What's my argument? Why is it unsound?

You missed my post.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=664513&postcount=527

 

[ReillyT]

You missed my post.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=664513&postcount=527

I think you mis-characterized his premise. I don't think his premise was that if you attacked with x, you only need x to defender yourself. It was if you are attacked with x, you only need y (at some level short of automatic weapons (z)) to defend yourself.

So, if you attacked by a child with a chopstick, you may need more than a chopstick to defend yourself, but you certainly don't need more than a handgun (and you certainly don't need a bazooka).

Anyway, that is how I read what he is saying.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think you mis-characterized his premise.

I don't see it as a mischaracterization at all.

 

[Diuretic]

That certainly makes my argument clearer. Now I just have to defend it

 

[Bern80]

I have a house full of stuff. It could be said I don't need it. But I do. If I want to open a can of food I need a can-opener to do it. I could do without a can-opener but it would mean I couldn't buy any canned food. Because I choose to have cannned food then I need a can-opener.

I was thinking about that when I made mention of recreational firearms use. I choose to go and shoot at target, I need a firearm to do so. I could do without a firearm but that would mean I couldn't go target-shooting. Because I choose to go target-shooting then I need a firearm.

That's my thinking on need. Maybe we can sort it from there.

A can opener is a tool to accomplish a real need - obtaining food. You don't however, need to recreational shoot therefore you don't need a gun. I imagine you have a TV, but you don't need to watch TV so you don't really need a TV. So by your argiment you shouldn't be allowed one. Again this idea that you can create a need for something out of an activity you want to do, but don't need to is pretty darn convenient. So convenient that by said argument you would have to allow to own an automatic if I were to say i want to target shoot with an automatic.

 

[ReillyT]

I don't see it as a mischaracterization at all.

OK

 

[Diuretic]

You missed my post.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=664513&postcount=527

Okay, this is the one I think:

False premise -- that you must face a legitimate threat from weapon X to show a 'need' to posess weapon X.

I don't see it as a "false premise", that threw me a bit. I think you mean I'm just wrong.

 

[Diuretic]

A can opener is a tool to accomplish a real need - obtaining food. You don't however, need to recreational shoot therefore you don't need a gun. I imagine you have a TV, but you don't need to watch TV so you don't really need a TV. So by your argiment you shouldn't be allowed one. Again this idea that you can create a need for something out of an activity you want to do, but don't need to is pretty darn convenient. So convenient that by said argument you would have to allow to own an automatic if I were to say i want to target shoot with an automatic.

As I said, if I want to open a can I need to use a can-opener. Do you agree?
If I want to eat food I can make a sandwich and not use a can-opener. I was linking the action of opening a can with the requirement for a can-opener.

So, if I want to do x then I need to have y or I can't do x.

If I want to shoot recreationally I need a firearm. I don't need to shoot recreationally, but if I do, then I need a firearm.

 

[ReillyT]

A can opener is a tool to accomplish a real need - obtaining food. You don't however, need to recreational shoot therefore you don't need a gun. I imagine you have a TV, but you don't need to watch TV so you don't really need a TV. So by your argiment you shouldn't be allowed one. Again this idea that you can create a need for something out of an activity you want to do, but don't need to is pretty darn convenient. So convenient that by said argument you would have to allow to own an automatic if I were to say i want to target shoot with an automatic.

There are needs to satisfy wants, and there are needs to satisfy needs. We need to eat, and hence, we need rain. We want to shoot, and hence, for that purpose, we would need guns. However, while there is little point in arguing whether we should satisify our need for food. One can disagree on whether we should satisfy our desire to (want) shoot recreationally. The word need has multiple connotations, and it is unfortunate that our language uses the same word for so many.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't see it as a "false premise", that threw me a bit. I think you mean I'm just wrong.

Yes, but you're wrong because the premise isn't supportable, for the reasons stated.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are needs to satisfy wants, and there are needs to satisfy needs. We need to eat, and hence, we need rain. We want to shoot, and hence, for that purpose, we would need guns.

Putting aside for the moment that the need/need v want/need is inaccurate...

Shooting is all about self-defense, and thus, it is a need/need not a want/need.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, but you're wrong because the premise isn't supportable, for the reasons stated.

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.

Is this why I'm wrong?