Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

Submachine guns, one person fully automatic weapons, were NOT designed to kill. They were designed to suppress the enemy. Force them into cover restricting their vision and movement while allowing the other side the time to move and engage first.

Let's not play word games here. If someone stuck their head up would they be killed? Or would the nice soldier stop firing?

 

[Bern80]

A fully automatic firearm has as its primary purpose the killing of human beings.

And YOU wonder why I get arrogant and condescending with you when you come up with endless stream of excuses to not answer direct questions.

And I have explained to you more times then I care to count that this is false premise. It is false because

A) it is disingenuous and inaccurate statement to say the purpose of automatic is to kill people. It's in inanimate object Diuretic . It only kill a person if a person chooses to do so with it. As an inanimate object it doesn't have the ability on it's own to choose its target, since it's target can not be determined until it comes into interaction with a human you can not attribute the primary purpose of the weapon as killing people.

This is unfortunately a situation where semantics do come into play. Your statement was an automatic purpose is to kill people, not the most effective a person can kill someone is with an automatic, or killing people is what an automatic is predominantly used for.

This is essentially what you have stated. An inanimate object has the purpose of killing a specific target.

Yet without a human said object can not be used for that purpose. The very best you can attribute to an automatic is that it's purpose is to fire bullets quickly.

It's just really ironic that you keep telling me I'm just saying your wrong when I have said why you're wrong countless times now and it is you that has failed to offer a counter argument to the above. If you can do that, then we'll be getting somewhere.

B) even if true it is irrelevant because at end the of the day a person chooses what it will be used for, which renders your perceiver primary purpose irrelevant.

Because it’s primary purpose is to kill human beings it should only be owned/possessed by those who can show a legitimate need to kill human beings.

This is where your logic goes of the deep end. The can be worded a different way and still mean the same thing. Such as "A person should not own an automatic weapon if they are not going to use it to kill people" meaning therir reasons for owning one is something other than killing people. Now explain why that is either A) not saying the same thing or B)why I should not be allowed to own something that I'm not going to use for something other than killing people.

To B you're going to repeat for the upteenth time because it's purpose is to kill people. To which I ask if not going to be killing people of what relevance is what you perceive it's purpose to be?

 

[Bern80]

I don't want to ban cars and cigarettes. There's a very good reason for that. And it goes to the primary purpose of those objects.

What are cars for? Transporting people.

What are cigarettes for? Putting nicotine into the body.

What are machine guns for? Killiing people.

Luckily I can differentiate between the primary purpose of these three items. It's called discrimination. That's why I can call for restrictions on machine guns which amount to prohibition of private ownership and yet I don't have to call for a ban on cars or cigarettes. I can do that without any inconsistency because I'm using the primary purpose of each item as my grounds for discrimination.

I think I'd take the word of Retired Gunnery Sargeant of yours as to the purpose of an automatic weapon.

That doesn't make the purpose and less irrelevant however since at the end of the day I am determining the purpose.

 

[Bern80]

Let's not play word games here. If someone stuck their head up would they be killed? Or would the nice soldier stop firing?

Word games? that's pretty rich. From the guy who created need out of a want and can't differentiate purpose of primary use.

An interesing side point and I bet RGS would agree automatics aren't predominantly used to kill people. I would imagine the vast majority of their use is done at targets on army bases.

 

[LOki]

To the guns.

A fully automatic firearm has as its primary purpose the killing of human beings.

Correction:
A fully automatic firearm has as its primary purpose the defending the lives and liberties of human beings.

Because it’s primary purpose is to kill human beings it should only be owned/possessed by those who can show a legitimate need to kill human beings.

Correction:
Because it’s primary purpose is to defend the lives and liberties of human beings it should be owned/possessed by all those who can possess the legitimate desire to defend the lives and liberties of human beings.

I don't want to ban cars and cigarettes. There's a very good reason for that. And it goes to the primary purpose of those objects.

What are cars for? Transporting people.

What are cigarettes for? Putting nicotine into the body.

What are machine guns for? Killiing people.

Correction:
What are machine guns for? Defending human lives and liberties.

Luckily I can differentiate between the primary purpose of these three items. It's called discrimination.

It's called not wanting others to own fully automatic weapons, and inflicting your want on others at gunpoint (via the surrogate of government guns).

That's why I can call for restrictions on machine guns which amount to prohibition of private ownership and yet I don't have to call for a ban on cars or cigarettes.

No. you call on restriction on machine guns because you're a bit of an authoritarian, and privately owned machines guns are a threat to the authorities that find a way to rationalize their own ownwership of machine guns.

I can do that without any inconsistency because I'm using the primary purpose of each item as my grounds for discrimination.

You, of course, have to misrepresent the primary purpose of machine guns to accomplish your ends.

 

[Diuretic]

And YOU wonder why I get arrogant and condescending with you when you come up with endless stream of excuses to not answer direct questions.

And I have explained to you more times then I care to count that this is false premise. It is false because

A) it is disingenuous and inaccurate statement to say the purpose of automatic is to kill people. It's in inanimate object Diuretic . It only kill a person if a person chooses to do so with it. As an inanimate object it doesn't have the ability on it's own to choose its target, since it's target can not be determined until it comes into interaction with a human you can not attribute the primary purpose of the weapon as killing people.

This is unfortunately a situation where semantics do come into play. Your statement was an automatic purpose is to kill people, not the most effective a person can kill someone is with an automatic, or killing people is what an automatic is predominantly used for.

This is essentially what you have stated. An inanimate object has the purpose of killing a specific target.

Yet without a human said object can not be used for that purpose. The very best you can attribute to an automatic is that it's purpose is to fire bullets quickly.

It's just really ironic that you keep telling me I'm just saying your wrong when I have said why you're wrong countless times now and it is you that has failed to offer a counter argument to the above. If you can do that, then we'll be getting somewhere.

B) even if true it is irrelevant because at end the of the day a person chooses what it will be used for, which renders your perceiver primary purpose irrelevant.

And that's why I argue for prohibition from private ownership. A person does indeed decide the use of the object. This object can be used to kill humans very efficiently and effectively, that's its primary purpose. And because it can be used to do that it should not be in private ownership.

If A has a machine gun in his house he can use it to kill people. If A doesn't have a machine gun in his house he can't use it to kill people. It's the nature of the firearm that I'm looking at, not the motivation of the person in possession of it. I'm sure that plenty of people would be responsible users, but in terms of public policy a machine gun is so effective at killing people that allowing unrestricted private ownership of machine guns throughout the population increases the chances of such a firearm being in the possession of a highly irresponsible individual, make that many highly irresponsible individuals. You see that endangers public safety so it's right that the private ownership of full autos be prohibited.

This is where your logic goes of the deep end. The can be worded a different way and still mean the same thing. Such as "A person should not own an automatic weapon if they are not going to use it to kill people" meaning therir reasons for owning one is something other than killing people. Now explain why that is either A) not saying the same thing or B)why I should not be allowed to own something that I'm not going to use for something other than killing people.

To B you're going to repeat for the upteenth time because it's purpose is to kill people. To which I ask if not going to be killing people of what relevance is what you perceive it's purpose to be?

"A person should not own an automatic weapon if they are not going to use it to kill people."

You need some qualifiers here, you missed the ones I used. "A person should not own an automatic weapon if they are not going to use it to legitimately kill people." I'd agree with that. In essence that's my military/some police argument.

Now explain why that is either A) not saying the same thing or B)why I should not be allowed to own something that I'm not going to use for something other than killing people.

To B you're going to repeat for the upteenth time because it's purpose is to kill people. To which I ask if not going to be killing people of what relevance is what you perceive it's purpose to be?

You lost me here.

 

[Diuretic]

I think I'd take the word of Retired Gunnery Sargeant of yours as to the purpose of an automatic weapon.

That doesn't make the purpose and less irrelevant however since at the end of the day I am determining the purpose.

I was rather hoping RGS would answer it because if the purpose of suppressing fire is to make loud noises which scare the enemy then why not use blanks?

 

[Diuretic]

Correction:
A fully automatic firearm has as its primary purpose the defending the lives and liberties of human beings.

By killing other human beings.

Correction:
Because it’s primary purpose is to defend the lives and liberties of human beings it should be owned/possessed by all those who can possess the legitimate desire to defend the lives and liberties of human beings.

Not just legitimate desire but the duty to defend the lives and liberties of human beings – that’s why I argue that the military and some police should have them

Correction:
What are machine guns for? Defending human lives and liberties.

By killing people.

It's called not wanting others to own fully automatic weapons, and inflicting your want on others at gunpoint (via the surrogate of government guns).

That doesn’t follow and it's just dummy spitting, come up with an argument instead of a collection of words.

No. you call on restriction on machine guns because you're a bit of an authoritarian, and privately owned machines guns are a threat to the authorities that find a way to rationalize their own ownwership of machine guns.

Ad hominem and therefore of no value in the discussion. You're getting desperate aren't you?

You, of course, have to misrepresent the primary purpose of machine guns to accomplish your ends.

And you have to misrepresent my arguments because you can't rebut them.

The primary purpose of a machine gun is to kill people. Rebut it.

 

[Diuretic]

Word games? that's pretty rich. From the guy who created need out of a want and can't differentiate purpose of primary use.

An interesing side point and I bet RGS would agree automatics aren't predominantly used to kill people. I would imagine the vast majority of their use is done at targets on army bases.

Need and want, would you like me to explain the differences to you again?

Primary use - again, should I explain what it means? I'm quite happy to do so.

As for your "interesting side point". It's called "training". "Training" is an activity that is used to enhance the psychomotor, cognitive and affective skills of individuals to ensure their performance in a particular situation is enhanced. As such training is a subordinate activity, especially in the military.

But training is essential.

And this is why - the military shoot at targets on bases so that when they are shooting at people they can kill them, with their machine guns. No-one wants a military that misses the target, so they do a lot of training. The phrase, "you play as you train" may be useful to you in remembering the purpose of training.

And what that has to do with anything being discussed here is beyond me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well except by your logic and definition all firearms are in fact designed and intended to kill. A semi automatic is in fact MORE efficient at killing since rather then spraying bullets ineffectively about ( which happens on fully auto every time , especially if your not on a mounted tripod) every shot can be a hit. No barrel raising loss of most of the rounds as you spray automatic fire into the air.

That would be why most capability for unlimited fully automatic fire was removed in the US rifle inventory for the military. Rather replaced with a 3 round burst function. You see unless your weapon is tripod mounted anything more than a 3/4 round burst and all your bullets are off in the air as the barrel raises from firing.

That is why troops were taught to fire short bursts with submachine guns.

Your entire argument fails again because you have also argued that it is perfectly ok to own semi automatic rifles. You keep claiming an automatic was designed to kill and this alone causes it to be banned because of a "potential" for human loss of life. Semi auto's are more dangerous, hell bolt actions as well. Any fire arm has the "potential" to kill and was " designed" to kill. Using your logic.

 

[Diuretic]

Well except by your logic and definition all firearms are in fact designed and intended to kill. A semi automatic is in fact MORE efficient at killing since rather then spraying bullets ineffectively about ( which happens on fully auto every time , especially if your not on a mounted tripod) every shot can be a hit. No barrel raising loss of most of the rounds as you spray automatic fire into the air.

That would be why most capability for unlimited fully automatic fire was removed in the US rifle inventory for the military. Rather replaced with a 3 round burst function. You see unless your weapon is tripod mounted anything more than a 3/4 round burst and all your bullets are off in the air as the barrel raises from firing.

That is why troops were taught to fire short bursts with submachine guns.

Your entire argument fails again because you have also argued that it is perfectly ok to own semi automatic rifles. You keep claiming an automatic was designed to kill and this alone causes it to be banned because of a "potential" for human loss of life. Semi auto's are more dangerous, hell bolt actions as well. Any fire arm has the "potential" to kill and was " designed" to kill. Using your logic.

Sorry to repeat myself but I have argued in this thread that not all firearms are in fact designed and intended to kill humans.

A machine gun is designed to kill humans, absolutely no question about that. They're not much good, as you've pointed out, for precise target shooting (you wouldn't see one at Bisley I would think).

But no need to pay heed to me. Why not look here:

http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/

On the left side - Mannlicher - hunting and outdoors use. On the right side -
military and police use. The assault rife is in the military and police section.

Btw, nice weapons, from memory I think Mannlicher made sniper rifles for the Wehrmacht in WWII but I could be wrong on that one.

 

[Ravi]

This thread is a hoot. I can't believe people are actually arguing that automatic weapons are not made for the purpose of killing people.

And Bern80 blaming Diuretic for Bern80's arrogance...priceless.

 

[LOki]

Need and want, would you like me to explain the differences to you again?

No, we understand; people have a "want" or a "need" for fully automatic weapons, but you don't want people to have them--what you want superceeds the needs and wants of others.

Primary use - again, should I explain what it means? I'm quite happy to do so.

Yes. This time don't confuse use with misuse.

As for your "interesting side point". It's called "training". "Training" is an activity that is used to enhance the psychomotor, cognitive and affective skills of individuals to ensure their performance in a particular situation is enhanced. As such training is a subordinate activity, especially in the military.

But training is essential.

And this is why - the military shoot at targets on bases so that when they are shooting at people they can kill them, with their machine guns. No-one wants a military that misses the target, so they do a lot of training. The phrase, "you play as you train" may be useful to you in remembering the purpose of training.

And what that has to do with anything being discussed here is beyond me.

Being able to procure your own weapons is essential when they are not provided to you.

By killing other human beings.

Not neccessarily, and the means by which they are used to effect their purpose does not change that purpose.

Not just legitimate desire but the duty to defend the lives and liberties of human beings – that’s why I argue that the military and some police should have them

Presented as if I asserted that the military and police should not have them? Having a legitimate desire to defend the lives and liberties of human beings, does not exclude or inerfere with any duty to defend the lives and liberties of human beings.

By killing people.

Not neccessarily, and the means by which they are used to effect their purpose does not change that purpose.

That doesn’t follow and it's just dummy spitting, come up with an argument instead of a collection of words.

Neither does your "discrimination." Your insistence that "need" plays any role in whether someone should be allowed have something or not is just dummy spitting as well--come up with an argument instead of a collection of words.

Ad hominem and therefore of no value in the discussion. You're getting desperate aren't you?

Not desperate, or ad-hominem. Give it a moment of thought.

And you have to misrepresent my arguments because you can't rebut them.

I have not misrepresented your argument--not even once.

The primary purpose of a machine gun is to kill people.

The primary purpose of a machine gun is to defend human life and liberty; the means by which it is used to effect it's purpose does not change that purpose.

Besides, a point I've brought up on several occaisions (one that you've ignored consistent with your particular idiom) is, even if we stipulate to your assertion that the primary purpose of a machine gun is to kill people; So what? Killing people is the primary purpose of a great number of things; so what?

Rebut it.

Done.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not neccessarily, and the means by which they are used to effect their purpose does not change that purpose.



Presented as if I asserted that the military and police should not have them? Having a legitimate desire to defend the lives and liberties of human beings, does not exclude or inerfere with any duty to defend the lives and liberties of human beings.



Not neccessarily, and the means by which they are used to effect their purpose does not change that purpose.



Neither does your "discrimination." Your insistence that "need" plays any role in whether someone should be allowed have something or not is just dummy spitting as well--come up with an argument instead of a collection of words.



Not desperate, or ad-hominem. Give it a moment of thought.



I have not misrepresented your argument--not even once.



The primary purpose of a machine gun is to defend human life and liberty; the means by which it is used to effect it's purpose does not change that purpose.

Besides, a point I've brought up on several occaisions (one that you've ignored consistent with your particular idiom) is, even if we stipulate to your assertion that the primary purpose of a machine gun is to kill people; So what? Killing people is the primary purpose of a great number of things; so what?



Done.

It is a waste of time Loki, he has his ignorant position he can not defend with logic so he has to twist and spin and ignore with every post.

 

[Diuretic]

Loki and RGS - no, I'm not twisting and spinning at all. I'm simply consistent.

I think you, as my opponents - and I don't mean that in a hostile manner - togther with Bern and M14 - may have to concede that you can't get around my arguments for prohibition of the private ownership of fully automatic weapons.

It's not that I'm any good at this sort of caper, it's just that, despite your best intentions, there are no good arguments against my position. You'll probably have to resort to some sort of extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, extreme to the point of turning a right to bear arms into a licence to bear arms, thus flying in the face of the intent of the constitution and the philosophy that guided its creation, the idea from Locke that liberty isn't licence.

I have to admit it's been fun

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think you, as my opponents - and I don't mean that in a hostile manner - togther with Bern and M14 - may have to concede that you can't get around my arguments for prohibition of the private ownership of fully automatic weapons.

Only because you won't admit that your arguments, shown to be based on false premises, have been proven unsound, as evidenced by the fact that you refuse to actually address the issued put to you.

That is, you're stonewalling, and then claiming that we didn't prove you to be wrong.

 

[Diuretic]

Only because you won't admit that your arguments, shown to be based on false premises, have been proven unsound, as evidenced by the fact that you refuse to actually address the issued put to you.

That is, you're stonewalling, and then claiming that we didn't prove you to be wrong.

As I said M14, not a glove laid. Rather than telling me how wrong I am you should be demonstrating my errors. Try it. Try posting a rebuttal instead of a review.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've asked for a question I apparently missed to be put to me. As of this post I haven't been given the question. It's quite easy for it to be put to me, all it takes is a new post.

2 questons you havent addressed:

1:
You speak of banning automatic because of the potential, rather than actual harm they cause, because potential harm is enought o strip people of their rights - that is, because it CAN cause harm, it should be banned.
How does the potential harm of every man having a penis not justify the restriction/prohibituon of same?

2:
Given that you do not object to everyone owning semi-automatic weapons...
How, specifically and precicely, is the 'potential harm' of everyone owning an automatic weapon is sufficiently greater than that of everyone owning a semi-automatic version of an automatic weapon to justify the banning of one, but not the other?

 

[M14 Shooter]

As I said M14, not a glove laid. Rather than telling me how wrong I am you should be demonstrating my errors. Try it. Try posting a rebuttal instead of a review.

I did. I attacked the premise of your arguments, successfully.
You simply refused, without any sort of counter, to accept it.

 

[Diuretic]

2 questons you havent addressed:

1:
You speak of banning automatic because of the potential, rather than actual harm they cause, because potential harm is enought o strip people of their rights - that is, because it CAN cause harm, it should be banned.
How does the potential harm of every man having a penis not justify the restriction/prohibituon of same?

2:
Given that you do not object to everyone owning semi-automatic weapons...
How, specifically and precicely, is the 'potential harm' of everyone owning an automatic weapon is sufficiently greater than that of everyone owning a semi-automatic version of an automatic weapon to justify the banning of one, but not the other?

1. A machine guns kills, a penis doesn't

2. Remember Martin Bryant in Port Arthur, Tasmania? He used semi-autos. He killed a lot of people. He just went around shooting people. No-one could shoot back because they weren't armed. So off he went, for a few hours, shooting people. But just think how many more he could have killed if he'd had a fully automatic weapon.

Just one point though. If any of you start on about how someone with a ccw permit handgun could have taken him out make another thread and I'll see you over there. If you use this thread to go on about that then you may as well run up the white flag on the argument here.