Gun freedom advocates - what weapons shouldn't be legally available? - page 6.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 2119

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: Rassah on March 07, 2013, 12:39:31 AM

What do you mean by "area denial weapons?' What about automated turrets that give a warning before "denying" entry?

I think he mostly means mines. Which I think are definitely a thought-worthy subject. On the one hand, a useful military tool, on the other hand, the civilian aftermath is simply unacceptable (though our modern predilection for pretending that civilians are not part of the conflict is somewhat naive and, given what's going on in the middle east, something most of us seem to prefer to be in denial about).

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

What do you mean by "area denial weapons?' What about automated turrets that give a warning before "denying" entry?

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: Wolf0 on March 06, 2013, 06:12:17 PM

I vote for private citizens to be able to have all weapons, with the following exceptions:

- No weapons of mass destruction
- No area denial weapons
- No biological weapons

Mainly because I think no one should be allowed to have those kinds of weapons.

Can you define them more explicitly please?

How mass is mass? How much area is area? How biological is biological? Do nano-weapons counts?

Wolf0

member

Activity: 81

Merit: 1002

It was only the wind.

I vote for private citizens to be able to have all weapons, with the following exceptions:

- No weapons of mass destruction
- No area denial weapons
- No biological weapons

Mainly because I think no one should be allowed to have those kinds of weapons.

imanikin

hero member

Activity: 702

Merit: 503

Double-barrel shotgun! Cheesy

Dalkore

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1026

Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012

Quote from: myrkul on January 16, 2013, 05:30:07 PM

Quote from: Dalkore on January 16, 2013, 03:21:22 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on January 16, 2013, 03:03:35 PM

The police are great at figuring out who killed you, not preventing your death.

This is correct, Police are almost always unless they are lucky, a reactive force, not proactive.

You know what's great at preventing your death? A gun on your hip. Or better yet, concealed in a pocket. Concealed carry in an area makes criminals not sure whether or not anyone's carrying, thus less likely to attack anyone.

That is one of the best deterrents for sure.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Dalkore on January 16, 2013, 03:21:22 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on January 16, 2013, 03:03:35 PM

The police are great at figuring out who killed you, not preventing your death.

This is correct, Police are almost always unless they are lucky, a reactive force, not proactive.

You know what's great at preventing your death? A gun on your hip. Or better yet, concealed in a pocket. Concealed carry in an area makes criminals not sure whether or not anyone's carrying, thus less likely to attack anyone.

Dalkore

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1026

Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012

Quote from: RodeoX on January 16, 2013, 03:03:35 PM

The police are great at figuring out who killed you, not preventing your death.

This is correct, Police are almost always unless they are lucky, a reactive force, not proactive.

Gang units are the closest things the Police have to proactive because of their use of informants on upcoming turf disputes, drive-bys and organized illegal purchases/sales. But this only works because gangs operate as an organized unit that you can track. Most violence is random or spur of the moment so this type of police would not be very useful in combat those situations.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

The police are great at figuring out who killed you, not preventing your death.

Lethn

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Peter Lambert on January 16, 2013, 01:31:49 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on January 15, 2013, 10:25:00 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on January 14, 2013, 12:57:39 PM

It may be hard for non-Americans to understand, but here the idea of an authority carrying a gun telling you you can't have a gun is antithetical. Cops are more likely than CCW holders to kill someone illegally or accidentally. So why should I be required to depend on them? I am from a LEO family and I know for a fact that I know more about guns and gun safety than most cops.

It's also important to understand that police have no legal obligation to protect you unless they choose to incur that obligation. Generally speaking, you have no right to government services -- the government can set its own priorities. So if the government has a monopoly on protection but chooses not to provide it to you, you have no right to protection nor can you provide it for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

That's actually an indisputable fact if you look at the response time for police in all areas, something people often choose ignore.

Peter Lambert

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye

Quote from: JoelKatz on January 15, 2013, 10:25:00 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on January 14, 2013, 12:57:39 PM

It may be hard for non-Americans to understand, but here the idea of an authority carrying a gun telling you you can't have a gun is antithetical. Cops are more likely than CCW holders to kill someone illegally or accidentally. So why should I be required to depend on them? I am from a LEO family and I know for a fact that I know more about guns and gun safety than most cops.

It's also important to understand that police have no legal obligation to protect you unless they choose to incur that obligation. Generally speaking, you have no right to government services -- the government can set its own priorities. So if the government has a monopoly on protection but chooses not to provide it to you, you have no right to protection nor can you provide it for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: RodeoX on January 14, 2013, 12:57:39 PM

It may be hard for non-Americans to understand, but here the idea of an authority carrying a gun telling you you can't have a gun is antithetical. Cops are more likely than CCW holders to kill someone illegally or accidentally. So why should I be required to depend on them? I am from a LEO family and I know for a fact that I know more about guns and gun safety than most cops.

It's also important to understand that police have no legal obligation to protect you unless they choose to incur that obligation. Generally speaking, you have no right to government services -- the government can set its own priorities. So if the government has a monopoly on protection but chooses not to provide it to you, you have no right to protection nor can you provide it for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

KWH

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1045

In Collateral I Trust.

Quote from: RodeoX on January 14, 2013, 12:57:39 PM

It may be hard for non-Americans to understand, but here the idea of an authority carrying a gun telling you you can't have a gun is antithetical. Cops are more likely than CCW holders to kill someone illegally or accidentally. So why should I be required to depend on them? I am from a LEO family and I know for a fact that I know more about guns and gun safety than most cops.

Why should my rights be limited because of the actions of a few truly insane people? Go after them, not me. This "blaming the gun" stuff is childish. Or should we start arresting guns and letting psychopaths go free?

Next stop: The manufacturers.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

It may be hard for non-Americans to understand, but here the idea of an authority carrying a gun telling you you can't have a gun is antithetical. Cops are more likely than CCW holders to kill someone illegally or accidentally. So why should I be required to depend on them? I am from a LEO family and I know for a fact that I know more about guns and gun safety than most cops.

Why should my rights be limited because of the actions of a few truly insane people? Go after them, not me. This "blaming the gun" stuff is childish. Or should we start arresting guns and letting psychopaths go free?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on January 12, 2013, 12:59:40 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Those cities didn't violate what you've proposed, the test is simply too difficult for the average person to pass. All you have to do is pass the test required to wear a blue suit and a badge and you can happily own and carry firearms.

Can you not see the problem with "proving their competence", i.e. a test? A test requires an authority. If an authority can enforce a test, they can enforce any kind of test they want!

I see many "freedom" advocates fall for this, pardon the term, bullshit.

Authority must be justified.

That's what we've been saying.

KWH

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1045

In Collateral I Trust.

"........shall not be infringed."
Notice there are no conditions in there, none at all? 2nd Amendment is short and to the point.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: ?? on ??

Those cities didn't violate what you've proposed, the test is simply too difficult for the average person to pass. All you have to do is pass the test required to wear a blue suit and a badge and you can happily own and carry firearms.

Can you not see the problem with "proving their competence", i.e. a test? A test requires an authority. If an authority can enforce a test, they can enforce any kind of test they want!

I see many "freedom" advocates fall for this, pardon the term, bullshit.

Authority must be justified.

pyra-proxy

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Quote from: TheButterZone on January 11, 2013, 10:29:27 PM

Quote from: pyra-proxy on January 11, 2013, 09:34:31 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: pyra-proxy on January 11, 2013, 09:06:05 PM

No limits but....

Morale of the story - Weopon rights should be natural but revocable due to action/misdeed and require competency validation to act upon this right.

Very strange post. You say no limits, then go on to list quite a few limits. You mention "rights" and then talk about privileges.

It's not a "right" if I have to take a class for permission.

I was saying it's your right if you can prove competence with handling them... it's a right in that so long as you are competent and can prove that then you can own/use them... no one stopping anyone from proving their competence.

Except in those "gun control utopias" like Chicago, NYC, DC, where blood runs through the streets and the common man is banned from proving their competence.

And this is where what I said does not match your example, I said no one should be banned from proving their competence (and to clarify further to enable the sale/purchase of firearms), those cities violate what I proposed here and look what happened to them. What I offer is allowing all to own/use them, but restrict acquisition based upon proven competence including mass allowance of concealed weapons, my restrictions only restrict a person buying/selling them if the purchaser cannot certify with simple gun safety practices which are reflective of the type of weapon purchased

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 1031

RIP Mommy

Quote from: pyra-proxy on January 11, 2013, 09:34:31 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: pyra-proxy on January 11, 2013, 09:06:05 PM

No limits but....

Morale of the story - Weopon rights should be natural but revocable due to action/misdeed and require competency validation to act upon this right.

Very strange post. You say no limits, then go on to list quite a few limits. You mention "rights" and then talk about privileges.

It's not a "right" if I have to take a class for permission.

I was saying it's your right if you can prove competence with handling them... it's a right in that so long as you are competent and can prove that then you can own/use them... no one stopping anyone from proving their competence.

Except in those "gun control utopias" like Chicago, NYC, DC, where blood runs through the streets and the common man is banned from proving their competence.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: pyra-proxy on January 11, 2013, 09:56:17 PM

Quote from: myrkul on January 11, 2013, 09:46:30 PM

Rights don't need proving.

If your incompetence with using something can infringe on my rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

If I infringe, I lose that right. Simple, easy, and requires only defensive force.

Topic: Gun freedom advocates - what weapons shouldn't be legally available? - page 6. (Read 10833 times)