Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

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

You wrote reviews. Anyway let's hear you on my Martin Bryant example.

 

[LOki]

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

Persistent repetition of the same refuted point is not the same as being 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.

Your argument has been refuted.

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.

PLENTY have been presented--the least of which is not that lack of "need" is no legitimate basis for prohibiting possession of anything, let alone machine guns.

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.

Nope--it's plain language is patently clear.

I have to admit it's been fun

You need to admit you've been punked.

 

[Diuretic]

Punked? I think not Loki. You're writing reviews as well. What is it with you blokes? You say it therefore it is? Very postmodern I'm sure.

Go for your shootin' iron pardner.

Let's try something new. I'll ask you you take anything I've posted and present it here. You can critique it and I'll defend it. How's that?

 

[LOki]

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

Maybe yours can'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.

Nobody had an auto matic weaopn? Even those who needed one to defend themselves? Just think of how many lives would have been save if not for some ridiculous gun control regulation that effectively disarmed Bryant's victims.

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.

Run up your white flag here as appropriate, and go start that thread. See you there.

 

[LOki]

Punked? I think not Loki. You're writing reviews as well. What is it with you blokes? You say it therefore it is? Very postmodern I'm sure.

Go for your shootin' iron pardner.

Let's try something new. I'll ask you you take anything I've posted and present it here. You can critique it and I'll defend it. How's that?

It's been done--thoroghly. Argument by argument, point by point, and you failed to defend, but instead complained about "parsing".

Instead, you go back and properly rebut the counter arguments made--how about that?

 

[Diuretic]

Stop it, you're making yourself look stupid.

 

[LOki]

Stop it, you're making yourself look stupid.

Stupid? I think not Diuretic. You're writing reviews as well. What is it with you? You say it therefore it is? Very postmodern I'm sure.

Go for your shootin' iron pardner.

Let's try something new. I'll ask you you take anything I've posted and present it here. You can critique it and I'll defend it. How's that?

 

[Diuretic]

Stupid? I think not Diuretic. You're writing reviews as well. What is it with you? You say it therefore it is? Very postmodern I'm sure.

Go for your shootin' iron pardner.

Let's try something new. I'll ask you you take anything I've posted and present it here. You can critique it and I'll defend it. How's that?

I'm flattered. You imitated me!

 

[LOki]

I'm flattered. You imitated me!

Asking you to address my counter arguments didn't work; perhaps then flattery--I didn't think it would do harm, and hope springs eternal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

And...?
Your argument is 'potential harm'. There are all kinds of harm that can be caused by penises, including death.
So, I ask again:
How does the potential harm of every man having a penis not justify the restriction/prohibituon of same?

But just think how many more he could have killed if he'd had a fully automatic weapon.

You asking me a question doesnt answer my question. Try again.
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]

You wrote reviews. Anyway let's hear you on my Martin Bryant example.

And there we have another example of you stonewalling.

 

[Diuretic]

Asking you to address my counter arguments didn't work; perhaps then flattery--I didn't think it would do harm, and hope springs eternal.

It was a good, if light, moment. And probably not a bad thing. If a thread is going to come to an end, especially one as venerable as this one (has it been going forever or is that my imagination?), it should do so with as much grace as possible.

 

[Diuretic]

And there we have another example of you stonewalling.

Oh. it's not ending?

Okay, how is that "stonewalling"? I gave an example and asked for a response.

Jeez you blokes, I don't mind going five on one but try to be fair about sticking to the rules eh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Jeez you blokes, I don't mind going five on one but try to be fair about sticking to the rules eh?

Did you have a response?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=668239&postcount=810

 

[Diuretic]

And...?
Your argument is 'potential harm'. There are all kinds of harm that can be caused by penises, including death.
So, I ask again:
How does the potential harm of every man having a penis not justify the restriction/prohibituon of same?

I think you're pulling my leg here, but just in case you aren't....having a penis means that life can be created if it's used in a certain way and other conditions are present.

You asking me a question doesnt answer my question. Try again.
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?

If you want to kill people then you can kill more people in a given period of time using a fully automatic weapon than you can kill, in the same period of time, using a semi-automatic weapon (assuming all conditions are identical). That's efficiency,.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think you're pulling my leg here, but just in case you aren't....having a penis means that life can be created if it's used in a certain way and other conditions are present.

That doesnt have anything to do with the potential harm standard you set.
One last time:
How does the potential harm of every man having a penis not justify the restriction/prohibituon of same?

If you want to kill people then you can kill more people in a given period of time using a fully automatic weapon than you can kill, in the same period of time, using a semi-automatic weapon (assuming all conditions are identical). That's efficiency,.

This doesnt address the question I aksed you.
You're supposed to provide a specific and precise description as to how the level of potential harm is sufficient to warrant the prohibition of one, but not the other.
One last time:
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?

 

[Bern80]

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.

IN FACT: You're wrong. I know you don't like hearing that but that's the case here.

What was the purpose of the musket?

And why aren't you seeking banishment of that?

 

[Bern80]

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.

So you are of the belief that an inanimate object has the ability to choose it's target as well, huh?

 

[Bern80]

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

an inanimate automatic weapon can have many targets. Only a person can determine what that target is. Thus it is incorrect to give an inanimate object a purpose that it doesn't have the ability to determine on it's own. Rebut it.

 

[Diuretic]

IN FACT: You're wrong. I know you don't like hearing that but that's the case here.

What was the purpose of the musket?

And why aren't you seeking banishment of that?

I don't understand what you're asking. And wrong about what? Mannlicher rifles? I said I was going from memory.

But the other points - I don't understand what you're getting at.