Here's a nice one for the gun advocates

[danny_galaga]

i for one would like to see SPORKS banned- i think THEY are criminal...

[Grasshopper]

Tailgunner, although I disagree with most of what you say, you do make some interesting points (unlike TA Pilot who quoted extremely selectively from my original post).

I didn't for instance realise that the Swiss were allowed to own machine guns. I guess that spoils a lot of jokes about them fighting their enemies with swiss army knives!

You're also sort of consistent. I'm always sympathetic to people who are in favour of legalising drugs and also pro gun ownewship.

Emotionally, I'm extremely libertarian, but rationally I recognise that in our increasingly overcrowded and interdependent world, there have to be some constraints on individual liberties, and one such constraint is over gun ownewship.

What I never understand is people who are anti-drug but pro-gun ownership.

I was amused by the quaint view you have of Britain. We may live in a theme park, but we've moved on a bit over the past two hundred years, and I can assure you that although our society is far from perfect, we are every bit as democratic as the United States. It's not our nasty oppressive government that has imposed gun controls on us. Quite the reverse. Our government has been forced over the years to introduce stronger gun controls because of pressure from public opinion.

I also think you're wrong to suggest that 18th century guns are comparable to modern guns on the basis that they were capable of killing people (isn't that what guns are designed for?).

In the 18th cantury if you wanted to load a gun you had to pour some gunpowder into the barrell, and then ram down a lead ball wrapped in cloth using a long stick. You probably also had to do a few other things as well, but I'm no gun expert. Oh, and they also only fired a single shot before requiring a reload. Even when sealed shells were introduced, guns remained single shot for a long time. There is no way you could carry out a Columbine style massacre with one of these weapons. You might, if you were very lucky, kill one person before being overpowered.

I've also been rethinking the argument I made in favour of gun ownership and I'd like to modify the statement I made slightly:

There is only one (sort of) credible argument I can think of for allowing private ownership of guns. If a country that allowed mass gun ownership was invaded, it would be very difficult for CERTAIN TYPES OF invading armies (or I guess home grown oppressors) to subjugate an armed civilian population.

Let me elaborate on this by going back to the example of Iraq. Some sections of the Iraqi population are mounting a very effective guerilla (or if you prefer terrorist) campaign against the British and American armies. Yet Saddam was easily able to subjugate the Iraqi people for several decades. Why is this? Well the answer is obvious. Saddam was prepared to be totally ruthless. If someone had kidnapped a hostage in his era, he would simply have wiped out the hostage taker's entire family, perhaps even his entire village. And he wouldn't have given a damn whether or not the hostage was killed in the process. The American and British armies are required to act within certain constraints (and quite rightly so). This means that it is harder for them to deal with a terrorist campaign.

What has this got to do with gun control? Well the Iraqi civilian population was, and still is, armed to the teeth. I understand that almost every adult male owns a gun, and we're not just talking revolvers, we're talking Kalashnikovs. However these guns did not protect them from Saddam.

You said that "As long as we're armed, it will completely be within our power to decide how we wish to run our society".

Sorry but I disagree. The bottom line is that a civilian population (however well armed) will never be a match for trained professional soldiers, if the soldiers are willing and able to act without restraint.

Also, modern wars are increasingly being fought with weapons other than guns. What good would a guy with a rifle be against a laser guided missile for instance?

But as I said originally, I wouldn't presume to tell you how you should run your society. I just like a good debate.

p.s. TA Pilot, if you re-read my original post, you will see that I addressed every single point you made. I'm not going to repeat myself, life's too short. Oh, and you still haven't answered the question of why people shouldn't be allowed to carry nuclear weapons. Quoting bits of the American constitution and an obscure court case is not an argument. In any case didn't you say the constitution is technology blind?

[patrickl]

Well the Iraqi civilian population was, and still is, armed to the teeth. I understand that almost every adult male owns a gun, and we're not just talking revolvers, we're talking Kalashnikovs. However these guns did not protect them from Saddam.

Didn't they get these guns mostly after the war ended (or at least was declared to have ended by GWB)?

Anyway, this is no reason to own a gun. Apart from the fact that civillians with a gun don't defend a nation against invasion (they merely annoy the invader during a long occupation), these guns can be stored in caches (like they were in Iraq) and distributed at the time an invasion is imminent.

[TA Pilot]

Oh, and you still haven't answered the question of why people shouldn't be allowed to carry nuclear weapons. Quoting bits of the American constitution and an obscure court case is not an argument.

Youre right.
Citing a court case isnt an argument  - it is support for an agument.

US v Miller is the controlling case in federal 2nd amendment law, as its the only 2nd Amendment case the USSC has heard.  Therefore, to call it "obscure" is to not understand the power behind it - or , perhaps, an attempt to downplay its significance.

And my argument is plain (and well supported) - given that no line infantry unit anywhere at any time has been issued a nuclear weapon, its impossible to argue that the 2nd protects a right to own it.  There isnt any way even the smallest nuclear devide would pass the Miller test.

The same does not apply to pistols, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, submachineguns, and machineguns.   Clearly, these do pass the test and as such are protected.  our right to own them shall not be infringed.

[TA Pilot]

Anyway, this is no reason to own a gun.

Yeah.
The need, real or perceived, to protect yourself from people that are tyring very hard to kill you isnt a reason to own a gun.

[Floyd10]

no, shooting atmosphere isn't a need

[Dartful Dodger]

no, shooting atmosphere isn't a need

English much speak?

[Floyd10]

I was responding to him

[danny_galaga]

Anyway, this is no reason to own a gun.

Yeah.
The need, real or perceived, to protect yourself from people that are tyring very hard to kill you isnt a reason to own a gun.

someone has a contract out on T & A pitot!!!  who'd a thought  

if it's the mob, you're boned, T & A. they'll just go for your family...

ya really gotta watch who ya borrow money off  

[TA Pilot]

I was responding to him

And I'll echo the sentiment....

"shooting atmosphere isnt a need"?  
Whats that mean?

[patrickl]

I was responding to him

And I'll echo the sentiment....

"shooting atmosphere isnt a need"?  
Whats that mean?

Your response to my original statement was nonsense (i.e it wasn't a response to the statement itself, but only to the wrongly perceived meaning of it) so in return Floyd10 responds with more nonsense. I guess that's what it means ...

[DrewKaree]

He was saying that (James, correct me if I'm not stating your position correctly) shooting your gun into the air doesn't constitute a need to own a gun.

While I think, Floyd, that you are trying to simplify the anti-gun argument, I have to think that THAT'S what a majority of anti's think gun owners do when they're not out blowing animals to smithereens.

Hey, is there a season on racoons, because those are something I may start hunting.  Darn things make it hard to drive....laying all over the road like furry speed bumps.

[Floyd10]

I agree with the first thing you said. I'm not anti-gun. I just think it's a little excessive to have fully automatic assault rifles for protection. The same with drums of napalm...

[TA Pilot]

I just think it's a little excessive to have fully automatic assault rifles for protection.

How many people do you know that has a full automatic assault rifle - for protection or otherwise?

[Floyd10]

I just think it's a little excessive to have fully automatic assault rifles for protection.

How many people do you know that has a full automatic assault rifle - for protection or otherwise?

one,but why should we allowed to have these?

[TA Pilot]

one,but why should we allowed to have these?


Because we have the right to arms... and they are "arms".

There are several legitimate uses for firearms.
What precludes, say, an M-14 from effective use in any of them?

[Floyd10]

one,but why should we allowed to have these?


Because we have the right to arms... and they are "arms".

There are several legitimate uses for firearms.
What precludes, say, an M-14 from effective use in any of them?

So do you think it should be legal to own small explosives? Place them on the windows. that'll stop intruders!

Or how about coat the lawn and walkway with napalm! That should help as well!

[TA Pilot]

There are several legitimate uses for firearms.
What precludes, say, an M-14 from effective use in any of them?

[GGKoul]

Sorry... It's Friday!

[TA Pilot]

Sorry... It's Friday!

Said as if there is any other day of the week where you could post an effective answer to my question.

[Floyd10]

There are several legitimate uses for firearms.
What precludes, say, an M-14 from effective use in any of them?

Im not saying it wont work, im saying it's unnecessary. But thats just me

[GGKoul]

Sorry... It's Friday!

Said as if there is any other day of the week where you could post an effective answer to my question.

Sorry, I forgot what your question was?  Oh, I remember.  I recommend 2 T-Slik Pluses and a IPAC/2.

[TA Pilot]

Im not saying it wont work, im saying it's unnecessary. But thats just me  

Whats "necessary"?

If there's a reason a particular weapon cant be used for any of the legitimate uses for a firearm, then you might be able to argue that you dont have a right to own it.

But if you can't come up with any such reason... then you're arguing up a very steep hill.

[Grasshopper]

Oh, and you still haven't answered the question of why people shouldn't be allowed to carry nuclear weapons. Quoting bits of the American constitution and an obscure court case is not an argument.

Youre right.
Citing a court case isnt an argument  - it is support for an agument.

US v Miller is the controlling case in federal 2nd amendment law, as its the only 2nd Amendment case the USSC has heard.  Therefore, to call it "obscure" is to not understand the power behind it - or , perhaps, an attempt to downplay its significance.

And my argument is plain (and well supported) - given that no line infantry unit anywhere at any time has been issued a nuclear weapon, its impossible to argue that the 2nd protects a right to own it.  There isnt any way even the smallest nuclear devide would pass the Miller test.

The same does not apply to pistols, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, submachineguns, and machineguns.   Clearly, these do pass the test and as such are protected.  our right to own them shall not be infringed.

Ahh, at last we're making some progress.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that it's ok for American citizens to own any type of 'infantry' weapon (i.e. one that can be carried by a foot soldier?) but not more powerful weapons. This still seems to be an arbitrary point at which to draw the line (and I'll leave aside the fact that there is nothing to stop a foot soldier carrying a nuclear device) but at least I'm now slightly closer to understanding your position.

Let me repeat my original question in a different way. If owning a gun makes you safer then surely owning a WMD such as a nuclear device makes you safer still. If not then why not? I'm playing devil's advocate and using your logic here. Surely it would be un-American not to have access to the most powerful weapons available.

You have also repeated your statement that it's ok to own 'infantry' weapons because it says so in the American constitution. As I said before this is not an argument. You have to explain why a 200 year old document drawn up in another age has anything relevant to say about weapons ownership today.

[TA Pilot]

Sorry, I forgot what your question was?  Oh, I remember.  I recommend 2 T-Slik Pluses and a IPAC/2.


Hey!  Beaker!

Look at the subject of this thread!

If you can't stay on topic, go somewhere that you can!

If you continue to disrupt this post with off-topic nonsense, I'll have to report you to the moderator.  

[GGKoul]

Sorry, I forgot what your question was?  Oh, I remember.  I recommend 2 T-Slik Pluses and a IPAC/2.


Hey!  Beaker!

Look at the subject of this thread!

If you can't stay on topic, go somewhere that you can!

If you continue to disrupt this post with off-topic nonsense, I'll have to report you to the moderator.  

Sorry to go off-topic.  

What I meant to recommend is 2 Act-Labs PC-TV Guns.  One for you and your kids.  

http://www.act-labs.com/scripts/proddetails.asp?pid=132

[Dartful Dodger]

TA and Floyd, have you tried to PM each other?

BTW wasn't the subject of this thread to watch a chick with guns video?  
And didn't the powers that be decide gun control was a dead end subject?

Here's a funny...
When TA first started posting I thought he was really Floyd.
<I still have my doubts>

[TA Pilot]

If I understand correctly, you're saying that it's ok for American citizens to own any type of 'infantry' weapon (i.e. one that can be carried by a foot soldier?)

Close enough.  
NOte that while your average infantryman -could- carry a nuclear weapon, they never do.



If owning a gun makes you safer then surely owning a WMD such as a nuclear device makes you safer still.

Absolutely false.
I cannot effectively use a nuclear weaoin in any of the ways I might need to exercise my right to arms.


As I said before this is not an argument.

Here, it is.



You have to explain why a 200 year old document drawn up in another age has anything relevant to say about weapons ownership today.

Because the right to self-defense, exercised individuyally or collectively is just as valid and as important today as in 1791.

[TA Pilot]

Here's a funny...
When TA first started posting I thought he was really Floyd.
<I still have my doubts>

LOL

Well, I have often said that the only way I can have an intelligent conversation is to talk to myself.

I dont mind at all discussing this in an open forum - if for no other reason than it annoys Beaker.

[Grasshopper]

If owning a gun makes you safer then surely owning a WMD such as a nuclear device makes you safer still.

Absolutely false.
I cannot effectively use a nuclear weaoin in any of the ways I might need to exercise my right to arms.

T A Pilot, can you expand a bit on this point, and perhaps give some hypothetical examples?

Please note I'm not trying to nit-pick. I'm genuinly trying to understand what you're saying here.

[TA Pilot]

T A Pilot, can you expand a bit on this point, and perhaps give some hypothetical examples?

Please note I'm not trying to nit-pick. I'm genuinly trying to understand what you're saying here.

The assertion was:
If owning a gun makes you safer then surely owning a WMD such as a nuclear device makes you safer still.

The right to arms exists so that we can, individually or collectively, ecerxise our right to self defense.

There isnt any way I can effectively exercixe my right to self-defense with a nuke.   I cant effectively use it to protect myself on the street, in my car, in my house.  I cant use it to effectively defend myself or anyone else from assailiant.

"If you dont drop the knife and leave now, I'll set off this .5kt nuclear device".   Do you see that having any effect at all?

Similarly, a nuke would be useless in the effective collective exercise of the right to self-defense.  Should the people in my community band together to combat a common threat, the comminuty itself would be as much as rick to the effects of the nuclear weapon as the threat itself.   You really arent gaining much in the defense of your town if the town is rendered uninhabitable by said defense.

So, the "bigger is better" theory isnt sound; nukes do not in any way make you safer than a gun.

 

[Mameotron]

If owning a gun makes you safer then surely owning a WMD such as a nuclear device makes you safer still.

No WMD would ever be classified as a gun.  Nor would a nuclear device.

A nuke is a bomb.  We are not allowed to have grenades, even though infantry soldiers carry and use them.  We are not allowed to have pipe bombs or napalm.  None of those things are guns.

The "bigger is better" argument is moot, anyway.  The law of diminishing returns kicks in.  At some point the gun will be too large to be effectively used for home protection.  If I park a tank in my driveway, I can't swing that big gun around fast enough to point it at a single person darting around my lawn.  I also can't carry it with me as I walk down the street.

It seems silly that I have to point out what seems fairly obvious.  TA Pilot has quoted numerous times the standard we use for determining what guns are protected.

A nuke is a bomb.
A bomb is not a gun.
A nuke is not protected by the 2nd amentment.

[Floyd10]

um, sorry to break it to u, but, um. It says the right to bear arms. nuclear arms are still arms.

not the right to own guns...

[TA Pilot]

um, sorry to break it to u, but, um. It says the right to bear arms. nuclear arms are still arms.

Thats right.
And "arms" as used in the 2nd amendment has been defined by the USSC to clearly include firearms and clearly exclude nuclear weapons.

You're making an argument based on an invalid definition.  You can use "arms" in it common meaning in causal conversation, but once its been legally defined as something --other-- that its common meaning, the common meaning no longer holds.

So, sorry to break it to you, but "arms" as used in the 2nd does not include nukes.

Now, you can try to make the (baseless) argument that if does, but you'll never be able to support it, and you'll necessarily be arguing that it does indeed include M16s, M60s, etc.

[Floyd10]

um, sorry to break it to u, but, um. It says the right to bear arms. nuclear arms are still arms.

Thats right.
And "arms" as used in the 2nd amendment has been defined by the USSC to clearly include firearms and clearly exclude nuclear weapons.

You're making an argument based on an invalid definition.  You can use "arms" in it common meaning in causal conversation, but once its been legally defined as something --other-- that its common meaning, the common meaning no longer holds.

So, sorry to break it to you, but "arms" as used in the 2nd does not include nukes.

Now, you can try to make the (baseless) argument that if does, but you'll never be able to support it, and you'll necessarily be arguing that it does indeed include M16s, M60s, etc.

I know. I was correcting his argument.

[Mameotron]

um, sorry to break it to u, but, um. It says the right to bear arms. nuclear arms are still arms.

not the right to own guns...

I hope you don't seriously believe this.

There are no absolute rights guaranteed by the Constitution.  If that were true there would be no gun debate.  We could all have whatever we felt like.

That's why the USSC had to make a definition as to what constitutes "arms" as protected by the 2nd Amendment.

[Floyd10]

You must have been trying to post that reply for 2 hours

[danny_galaga]

If owning a gun makes you safer then surely owning a WMD such as a nuclear device makes you safer still.

No WMD would ever be classified as a gun.  Nor would a nuclear device.
A nuke is not protected by the 2nd amentment.

apparently a bomb in a shoe is a WMD. whats the amendment say about shoes?  

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/thisweek/2002_1_17_womd.html

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ma/presspage/Oct2004/Badat-Saajid-Indictment.htm

[shmokes]

I love when you'all gun nuts fall back on the Supreme Court "definition" of arms whenever people point out that surely the 2nd Amendment does not apply to many weapons.  It's such an assinine argument.

The fact that the Supreme Court had to create a brand new definition of the word "arms" rather than simply using Webster's, only reinforces the gun control people's argument that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute and lines must be drawn.  There is simply no evidence that the 2nd Amendment excluded any existing arms when it was written.  If that is true, then it means that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right of the people to possess any weapon that a corrupt government or foreign invader might use, as it necessarily must if the people are expected to be able to defend themselves against said invasion.  If the 2nd Amendment's purpose is to allow people to protect themselves from a corrupt government and it's army or a foreign invasion it makes no sense to disallow the people from owning weapons that their would-be enemy's possess.  Look how difficult a time the Iraqi's are having against our government's military and they DO have the shoulder fired missle launches, mines and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

Unfortunately, you use the Supreme Court case to dodge actually answering the question.  There's not much question about what is and is not legal.  That's pretty clearly defined.  We're talking about what should and should not be legal.  Therefore it's a perfectly valid question to ask why, if the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own assault rifles, it should not guarantee your right to own shoulder-fired missile launchers, tanks or WMD's.  For you to counter with, "Because the Supreme Court said...," is like you asking me why I think abortion should be legal and my response being, "Because Roe v. Wade says so."   Assinine.

And don't forget that the Supreme Court specifically ruled in Plessy that "separate but equal" was constitutional, only to specifically rule ten years later in Brown that it was unconstitutional.  Supreme Court rulings can be and often are overturned by future Supreme Court's.  Roe, for example, could be and likely will be overturned if Bush wins the election and Sandra O'Conner retires (both of which are highly likely).

So, the moral of the story is:  Next time somebody asks you a perfectly valid quesiton, try to either answer it or reevaluate your position in light of the fact that you can't.  Don't just cop out.

p.s.  Owning an assault rifle will do me little good if the Ruskies drive into town in tanks.  In that case, I think I could much better defend myself from a foreign invasion if I had a tank parked in my drive-way.

[TA Pilot]

It's such an assinine argument.

And the argument that the 2nd applies to nuclear weapons...isnt?

Theres something call "jurisprudence".  You dont have to like it, but you have to resprect it.   The USSC was in a position hwere it had to define "arms" and it did.

Now, if -you- want to argue that the 2nd protects my Davy Crockett launcher and spare warheads, thats fine - because then you're necessarily arguing that it also protects my M14 and M-60.   I wont help you make the argument, but at least you admit that it protects evernything -I- think should be protected.

If you're gouing to argue that because the idea that it proctecs nules is asinine, and therefore it cant possibly protect my M-14 and M-60 either, then we'll have problems.