|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 23, 2012, 12:34 PM | #151 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
There are at least 3 blatant problems with the "military qualifies people or vets them as stable" argument that Uncle Billy is making. Lee Harvey Oswald, Marine, Charles Whitman, Marine, Nidal Malik Hassan, Army Major and psychiatrist.
They all met the requirements of the military, they all committed atrocities. One of them even was a mental health professional. These are only the high profile shooters, not to mention the countless other people who had been in or were in the military when committing crimes that would seemingly indicate the lack of "discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence". |
December 23, 2012, 12:40 PM | #152 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. Last edited by Spats McGee; December 23, 2012 at 12:50 PM. |
||||||
December 23, 2012, 12:49 PM | #153 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Glenn -- On the gang members, I note that the article that you linked states:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
December 23, 2012, 01:25 PM | #154 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 26, 2008
Posts: 217
|
"Anyone who has not met the military's requirements to demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence to have access to weaponry with capabilities (save full-auto fire which is an insignificant difference when assaulting unarmed unprepared unaware targets like 6-year-olds) identical to the military's combat weaponry."
The only person ever to deliberately point a gun at my head was a high school classmate who subsequently went into the Marines. The rumor at the time was that it was a deal cut to avoid serving time for the multiple crimes he had already committed. He was in prison within two years of getting out of the service. What about the several who have deliberately gone around killing Afghan civilians? Spare me. Mentally unstable or ill people should not have firearms, IMHO. But we need to be very thoughtful and explicit on how that is determined, otherwise it is just another tool to be manipulated by the antis to nefariously limit ownership. And as for training classes, I believe Chicago has now gone to requiring a training class, but does not allow them to be held in Chicago. Like the honest poor people in the South Side, the ones who really need to defend themselves the most, have the resources to both pay for the class and find a way to get 40 miles out into the suburbs to attend one. The politicians know this. |
December 23, 2012, 02:27 PM | #155 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 26, 2008
Posts: 217
|
I think it should be blindingly obvious that the root cause is cultural. The guns in question have been around for roughly 50 years yet these mass shootings have become common only recently. But don't try to bother those acting on blind emotion thinking they live in Pollyana-land with annoying facts or basic, common sense reasoning.
Last edited by Tom Servo; December 23, 2012 at 08:30 PM. Reason: Response to deleted post |
December 23, 2012, 04:39 PM | #156 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
Your also off base on military training and stability. I spent a majority of my adult life in active military service and I can tell you the military has its share of ill people. I even had a military roommate once who the shrink said to never bring back to her office without a armed escort. My roommate was very bizarre and yet it still took 6 months to identify he was sick and then thankfully he was put out in weeks. I have seen many sick people identified and put out over the years and many more who I thought needed treatment. (Im no doctor) My overall point is the Bill of Rights is very clear that the right to keep and bear arms is not limited to military and SCOTUS has recently ruled that we citizens have a right to defense... Group violence does exist... some future government may be tyrannical.. for all these reasons we have a right to military grade weapons.
__________________
Molon Labe |
|
December 23, 2012, 05:27 PM | #157 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
Quote:
1. If my reading of the 2A and the writings of the Founding Fathers is correct, then firearms with the "specific collected attributes" mentioned are exactly what they had in mind when the Bill of Rights was passed. Our right to keep and bear arms was premised on the belief that the people have the right to defend against any threat to liberty, whether foreign or domestic. The notion that an AR15 with a 30 rnd magazine is too dangerous for law abiding citizens to own is contrary to that principle. 2. Any weapon in the wrong hands represents a risk to the public at large. That is an uncomfortable reality that will not change by additional laws restricting or banning firearms. 3. Vetting firearms owners to determine mental stability, discipline, and responsibility is a tricky thing in a free nation. The increase of violence and mental health issues, financial and political uncertainty, and the break down of societal norms in general all contribute to a world that is a dangerous place. That is an uncomfortable reality that will not change by additional laws restricting or banning firearms. Quote:
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin |
||
December 23, 2012, 06:07 PM | #158 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
Quote:
Quote:
You fail define crowd-killers. I would like you to google revolver speedloaders and stripper clips and then tell me that someone truly bent on destruction can't use whatever means necessary. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do you want to ban .22's? Quote:
I really hope I dont need to explain why this is bad
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; December 23, 2012 at 06:11 PM. Reason: quote correction |
||||||||
December 23, 2012, 06:22 PM | #159 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
|
Quote:
Reasoning: In civilian life there are no hunting or defense situations that require a light, easily handled low recoil semiautomatic weapon with large on-board ammunition capacity, both of those uses for guns are equally or better met by guns less focused on quick, accurate mass killing. What's left are recreation, entertainments, in short, hobbies - targets, combat arms competitions, collections, re-creation of modern combat dress and equipment. etc. Justifying unlimited access to M-16- like capabilities at mass killing to maintain a hobby is nearly pathological indifference to the harm such weapons can do when the hobby gets out of hand. Too bad you can't ask Mrs. Lanza whether she agrees. I wrote: The lethal potential of such weapons in the hands of people who have access to them without having to pass through the military's filters of discipline, mental stability, a sense of responsibility and situation-determined use of such weapons limited only to armed combat or training for such combat, is and has been well demonstrated by the intended wanton murder of innocents. Reasoning: The weapons and their imitators and clones are made to be lethal in combat situations where quick, accurate killing fire is available to engage with and eliminate multiple personnel. No one has to go through combat arms training and psychological assessment, which would filter out those not mentally equipped to handle that firepower to access them in the civilian world. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains? |
||||||
December 23, 2012, 06:44 PM | #160 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
Not to mention as I have already said the historical requirement and necessity of having arms necessary to fight some future tyrannical government... And lets get real about it... the only difference between a traditional semi auto hunting rifle and a AR is:
__________________
Molon Labe Last edited by BGutzman; December 23, 2012 at 07:59 PM. |
|
December 23, 2012, 07:18 PM | #161 | |||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains? |
|||||||||||||
December 23, 2012, 07:36 PM | #162 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
The overthrow of an illegal or oppressive government is a legitimate civilian activity. If you don't believe me than ask the US Government why they are supporting the rebels in Syria to overthrow the government there. Quote:
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
||
December 23, 2012, 07:44 PM | #163 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
I don't like plastic guns either, I like nice walnut and blued metal, but military-equivalent weapons are the MOST constitutionally protected arms. Your duck-hunting double shotgun just goes along for the ride. And don't you ever think the gun-grabbers aren't after your guns too. They will not be happy until all guns are in the hands of the ruling class -- except for a few in the hands of violent criminals (which they'll never get rid of) but they are OK with that because criminals serve a useful purpose. Diane Feinstein has a concealed weapons permit, and AFAIK she still carries a snubnosed revolver. Do you know any ordinary people in San Francisco who could get a permit?
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; December 23, 2012 at 07:47 PM. Reason: Quote Correction |
|
December 23, 2012, 07:57 PM | #164 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
It is disheartening that folks continue to concentrate on the tool.
The facts, divorced from emotion, prove irrefutably that the tool of choice is irrelevant. These attacks happen all over the world and have been happening for all of recorded history. Even in the modern world, a great many of these attacks are carried out with edged weapons and routinely kill as many or more than those attacks which use firearms. In many parts of the world, there is near unrestricted, unlimited, cheap, easy access to fully-automatic weapons... and the attackers use explosives. Timothy McVeigh used explosives and killed 18 daycare children, among others. The worst school attack in American history was done with explosives, and killed 38 children and 20 adults. Believing that you can stop a lunatic who is bent on killing by forcing him to pick a different tool, is naive beyond comprehension. Totally divorced from the reality around us. The ONLY relevance that firearms have to the discussion is their use to DEFEND ourselves from these potential lunatics. There is no other tool that can be effectively carried or utilized that could be accessible to a normal person during their daily lives. NONE. The question of stopping the lunatics is a pure, unadulterated STRAW MAN argument. It's impossible. They can't be stopped. The end. Pick a different goal.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; December 23, 2012 at 08:02 PM. |
December 23, 2012, 08:00 PM | #165 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
December 23, 2012, 08:10 PM | #166 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 534
|
Quote:
__________________
---Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.--- ---Enlightenment is the ability to take infinite pains--- MOLON LABE
|
|
December 23, 2012, 09:10 PM | #167 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
The fact that many firearms are now almost exclusively used for hunting or recreation detracts nothing from its original intent and purpose. What was yesterday's military style firearm is simply today's hunting/sports/defensive firearm. As for your contention that civilians must needs be vetted by some military form, might I remind you that today, some 40,000,000+ lawful firearm owners did not commit a violent criminal act? |
|
December 23, 2012, 09:29 PM | #168 |
Member
Join Date: October 30, 2012
Posts: 38
|
Every person is required to carry a handgun.
|
December 23, 2012, 09:44 PM | #169 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
December 23, 2012, 10:04 PM | #170 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
Quote:
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin |
||
December 23, 2012, 10:35 PM | #171 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ever hear of the Bill of Needs? Me, neither.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||||
December 23, 2012, 10:45 PM | #172 |
Member
Join Date: October 18, 2012
Posts: 25
|
I'm tempted to say "Preach it Uncle Billy".
I know that people say that guns are just tools, but not all tools are equal to every task. There are tools that are better suited to different tasks, and, prima facie, the AR is a tool nicely suited to a particular situation that, as Uncle Billy has suggested, I think correctly, is not a highly likely one in civilian life. Ride me out on a rail on this, but I think there's a significant portion of the community that is harboring fantasies of holding off swarms of gov't agents, zombies, marauding bands of hoodlums, etc. Granted, in such situations, and AR would be handy. Outside of these situations, it is hard to see where alternative tools are insufficient to the task. So, here's what kinda freaks people, the 'anti's', out a bit: It seems like there is a refusal to even admit that certain tools are optimized for different situations, and there are some tools that are so unlikely to arise in civilian life, that the tool probably doesn't have a strong reason to be in civilian hands. There, I said it. I have an AR, and I probably shouldn't. Because I'm not going to be fighting off large organized bands of bad guys, and I'm not going to be leading a revolution. Should they be banned? Hell, I actually not sure because I'm not sure that it will make a massive difference, but failing to even acknowledge that these weapons have been designed with a very specific purpose, seems like a deliberate attempt as self deception. I'm donning my flame retardant suit, so flame on! |
December 23, 2012, 10:52 PM | #173 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
|
How is the purpose of an AR different from a Remington 700 or a Browning BPS? What makes you think that any firearm can make the list?
|
December 23, 2012, 10:52 PM | #174 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I don't deny that an AR is better suited for some situations than, say, an 870 Wingmaster. That'd be plain ol' silly. What I am saying is that your right to own isn't (or shouldn't be) predicated on the popular idea of what's "needed." If you open that door for the antis, then it's only a matter of time before the public is stripped of every firearm, down to and including Daisy Red Riders.
I don't think of guns as tools. They're weapons. The 2A doesn't protect the right to keep and bear tools.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
December 23, 2012, 11:10 PM | #175 | |
Member
Join Date: October 18, 2012
Posts: 25
|
Quote:
SCOTUS explicitly noted that their decision affirming the personal right to bear arms did not preclude regulations barring or severely restricting the ability of individuals from owning particular classes of firearms. Indeed, we already do this. NFA institutes a different regime for owning particular classes. So, the question that is going to be dealt with, is whether the easy availability of ARs and such (however any final legislation attempts to define it) has a cost, and is the cost worth the benefit. For all of those individuals that harbor SHTF fantasies of zombie wastelands, that's not a benefit that is going to weigh into the calculation. Neither is the idea that we might need to defend ourselves from marauding bands of BATF agents. We need to get our heads right and our feet on the ground and deal with reality. In my own personal belief, and as someone who lived in Germany and Sweden for periods of time, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that semi-automatic weapons, pistols or long guns, have a weak foundation for justifying broad ownership in the civilian population. This isn't an argument that I want to prevail, but I know good, decent, intelligent people that make very good arguments to this effect. They will argue, with very strong empirical evidence, that making killing tools less prevalent in the population, there will be less killing. Our argument needs to engage them on similar empirical grounds and not 1) Simply denying that some guns are just better at killing than others and 2) that our right to bear arms is absolute. Both are demonstrably false. The first by design, and the second by current law. |
|
|
|