Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 21. (Read 36627 times)

I suggest you stop spewing garbage.  I've read all your posts.

M

EDIT: Your position seems to be:

1 - guns themselves aren't the problem
2 - people wanting guns is the problem
3 - therefore we should prevent those who can use them to most from having them
4 - that'll somehow prevent misuse of guns by those who don't follow laws

I can't make heads or tails of your logic, if there is logic there.  Seems to me you are using a round about way of saying guns are the problem.

I suggest you refrain from replying to my statements until you have read all of my posts, otherwise you're just pissing in the wind without understanding my position.

I don't read your statements as being in line with any of the several state statutes which I am familiar with.

First, you assert "we can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die.  No exceptions."

But that's not the way the law is worded because it does not create actionable guidance.

Rephrase it as "threat of serious bodily injury" and maybe add "imminent" and yo have more realistic wording.  But then your prior assertion is falsified.

Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone.

And this statement is simply false.  But if you are referring to killing someone after the act is completed, then yeah, that shouldn't be done and would be murder.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this?  Cars are stolen regularly and used for crime.  Should we ban cars too?

Your solution is to punish the innocent for the crimes and carelessness of others.

If I could eliminate every single gun of any sort, and all knowledge of them, from every single person, government, LEO, whatever, the only thing that would change is spears and swords would become commonplace again.

M

All free men ought to be able to own a gun.  If they can not, they are not free.  Anyone who opposes a government is labeled in one way another, all the way up to treason.  That's the nature of governments.  One can not always clearly say objectively who is the right party in such situations.

M

This has been answered multiple times by people who seem to want to imagine no alternate universe where Jews were not incrementally disarmed by gun control to be exterminated.

1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition
1935 the Nuremberg Laws
1938 The Nazi Weapons Law (Waffengesetz)

These effectively neo-Nazis seem to believe that the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising's conclusion was destiny and the Jews should have just submitted to gun control and genocide instead of fighting for their lives. I can't believe sociopaths like these do not have positions in the highest levels of government.

I'm not so sure about your first point.  If I was a woman (or man for that matter) being sexually assaulted, and I had a gun available, if I had to reason to believe my life was in danger, I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger.  Doesn't mean it'd have to be a deadly shot, just enough to stop him.  However, if he turned out to be like a bear where bullets only aggravate him, there would be little choice in the matter.  I do recall the advice that used to be given to women to "let him do what he wants, you'll live in the end" turned out to be bad advice.  If you're threatened by knife or gun to be raped, I would assume your life is in danger.  Rapists tend to not like their victims being able to identify them.

M

Imagine a world superpower invading a 3rd world country and after many years of endless warfare, losing?  Think Afghanistan?

Those defending themselves against an evil oppressor, whether from the same country or not, have a decided edge against the oppressor.

What if the Jews had guns in the holocaust?  Do you think they would have been hauled off by the millions to be slaughtered?

Granted it would be an awful battle.  The casualties would be horrible.  But compared to the alternative, I can see how so called "insurgents" can run up to a tank and stick a grenade in the barrel.

M

Any country can change it's course in nonviolent way. Gandhi way maybe?
If you gather for a demonstration, and stones and molotovs start flying - someone's bound to be hurt shot. But that's the way of these protesters, especially towelheads.
That's a provocation, caused by protester leaders, who in turn are paid to ignite this passion, and instigate hate.
Among rebels are soldiers of fortune, coming from other countries. They are very well armed.
Armed citizens would never oppose those rebels, maybe only join, adding instability.
Also every war like this, is not just about citizens vs government. It's about other countries secret services, about political infighting, and mostly about tribal feuds. Sunnis vs kurds, poor vs rich, etc.

Imagine Obama has turned into an evil oppressor, with senate and other on his side. Big brother.
Even if anyone had guns up to that point, how much would rebel and use them? 1% 5%?
What would be the point?
Your guns will not protect your freedom.
Only if (following their own interests) Mexican druglords, Cuban army, local republican rednecks, Somali pirates and other rubbish with Europe's intelligence help, and weapons supllied from Russia and McCain as their leader suddenly emerge.

Is there a limit to the oppression that you see as acceptable for others, or ought there be some arbitrary limit, such as "genocide" or one of the other lines like "WMD"?

Please try to avoid confusing questions with statements.
I do not know your position, but I am hoping to learn your position, and what those limits are so that we can then discover how reasonable they are.

Since we have discovered that your position does distinguish between the governments...
What gun rights ought the Syrians citizenry have, and how are these different from what rights Americans ought have, and why?

I personally would love that. People would be still oppressed, but there would be no shitstorm of current proportions today.
BUT, I'm guessing those rebels did not get their weapons from shops Ak47's, RPGs, FN-Fals, Steyers, and explosives.
Now imagine you are living there, and loyalists or rebels break down your door, to entrench in your apartment.

If you have a gun in your hand, you're pretty much dead.

Absolutely. Furthermore, I advocated gun rights earlier in this thread, with reasonable limits. Feel free to go back and read them, so that you will stop stating what you think is my position.

You might as well take your own advice on that.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I am not the one generalizing.  I am ASKING whether your principles can be generalized or whether your advocacy is only to disarm Americans?  (as someone else put it because we are "most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths").

You have adequately answered this, it seems.  Your position is not a general principle as it is predicated on the nature and stability of the government in question.

You should consider the nature and stability of the government of the nation in question in conjunction with the well being of the people before generalizing.

Can you be specific?  What nature, what government?  What do you imagine that I am not considering in the way you deem proper?

You seem to be confusing a number of things. In order to help you gain clarity, you should consider the nature and stability of the government in conjunction with the well being of the people before generalizing.

No, I don't really pretend that I know anything at all about Syria or what they (by this I think you are meaning the government) should do.  I've never been there, though I may have friends that have.  Since it was brought up though it raises the questions above out of curiosity and whether your outlook is generalizable, or if it is constrained to the rights of a particular population, USAians.

All I can see about Syria is what reaches us through the filters of mediated information.  Internet, News, and the like.  So I don't really have any knowledge on the matter.

But there do seem to be some here who know all about what other folks should be doing, and have a penchant for advocating enforcing control regimes on them in order to make them conform with their world view of "the way things ought to be".  I am curious as to how that applies in the case of the Syrian people's relationship to their government.

One of our most famous American Syrians, Steve Jobs, was said at times to be pretty authoritarian, so maybe they are more amenable to your authoritarian outlook than the typical American?  Perhaps you would enjoy engaging them in a dialog about how they should not have any weapons unless they have a badge or a uniform and are paid by their authorities to point their weapons at whom their authorities choose?

Anyhow, I looked it up just now.  It looks like you would do pretty well there.  They seem to be moving toward the UN goal of disarming their people.
http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfileInfo.aspx?CoI=188&pos=1000

True that. Bring booze into the mix and violence is likely to increase. perhaps it should be banned again?
Amen. Whoever owns that gun should face charges.
This is a tricky one for people. Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone. It is common misconception about our rights as conceal carriers. We can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die. No exceptions.