Can Gun Nuts Please Stop Saying You Need Guns to Protect Yourself From A Potential Tyrannical Government!!!

[2aguy]

An absurd and unsupportable definition, created for convenience and avoidance.

This is a sure sign you have a position that you know cannot be soundly argued.

Funny how quiet they get when you ask the simple question...."What sensible gun control laws.....?"

Then all of a sudden they stop responding...

 

[M14 Shooter]

By the way, the M-1 Garand and Carbin...

...both, military weapons....

Both are semi-automatics just like the AR-15

... NOT a military weapon....

 

[mak2]

I concealed carry every day since about 1990. Whenever it was I moved back to Indiana It is not to protect myself from my government. I had been CC for years before I was in an online uber conservative online forum that spent most of their time talking about having guns to protect themselves from the government.

 

[Rumpole]

It depends, If I'm hunting Elephants or Rhinos, I want the most powerful gun I can get. By the way, the M-1 Garand and Carbine are NOT bolt action rifles. Both are semi-automatics just like the AR-15 and the Garand is a much more powerful rifle.

Why on God's Earth Would you wanna hunt an elephant or a rhino?

An absurd and unsupportable definition, created for convenience and avoidance.

This is a sure sign you have a position that you know cannot be soundly argued.
Why don't you stop playing coy, come clean, and state that posiiton, so that we might semonstrate exacly how unsound it is.

I'll start you out:
"AR15s and the like should be banned, because..."

I take what people write on this forum at face value and I expect the same of you.

There was nothing vague in what I wrote

 

[AZrailwhale]

An absurd and unsupportable definition, created for convenience and avoidance.

This is a sure sign you have a position that you know cannot be soundly argued.
Why don't you stop playing coy, come clean, and state that posiiton, so that we might semonstrate exacly how unsound it is.

I'll start you out:
"AR15s and the like should be banned, because..."

It also shows a basic ignorance. Every gun is designed for killing. It makes no difference wether the primary usage is military- killing the enemies of your country, civilian- killing other people who would harm you and your family, or hunting- killing animals for food. They all function the same, something (currently that is an explosive, but that’s subject to change) propels a projectile down a hollow cylinder with enough force for the projectile to kill its intended target. Many current military rifles can fire multiple rounds with one trigger pull, but many can’t. Making distinctions between single round, burst fire and fully automatic is like calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Useless mental masterbation. If a citizen is foolish enough to want an M-2 machine gun that fires rounds that cost ten bucks each, more power to him. If he wants a .22 caliber target rifle that fires single rounds that costs a nickel a round more power to him.

The simple truth is that it doesn’t matter what type of gun I, or any law-abiding citizen, owns. Those guns are no danger to anyone. If I were going to become a mass murderer, I would use the “particular skill set” Uncle Sam spent about a half million 1970 dollars teaching me and build bombs, what are now referred to as IEDs. I don’t need any weapon to murder people. As I was taught in Basic Training, there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people. Most veterans, especially Army combat arms and Marines are very dangerous people. The fact that a hell of a lot of us are getting long in the tooth just makes us more dangerous. Practically speaking, what does a retiree Vietnam Vet have to fear from the results of a murder trial? We are all dying day by day and a life sentence would be pretty short.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Why on God's Earth Would you wanna hunt an elephant or a rhino?

I take what people write on this forum at face value and I expect the same of you.

There was nothing vague in what I wrote

I dont know, I just picked the largest and hardest to kill land animal I could think of. I could have just easily picked a Kodiak Bear or Siberian Tiger for an example. The same logic applies; overkill is your friend when you are dealing with something or someone that can kill you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I take what people write on this forum at face value...

And yet, you refuse to accept, or understand, the terms as they are used and explained to you.

Let's cut it short:
The AR15 - the rifle demonozed by the anti-gun left - is -not- a military weapon.
-No military has ever issued them to its personnel
-No battle has ever been fought my any military using them as issued to its troops.
-It is serviceable for evry legal use an average citizen might have for a firearm.

The fact it LOOKS like a military weapons does not in any way shape or for MAKE it a military weapon.

And even THEN... even if the AR15 IS a military weapon, it does not in any way shape of form mean the average citizen has no legal use or one, or no constitutuonally protected right to own one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It also shows a basic ignorance. Every gun is designed for killing.

And the 2nd protects thr right to keep and bear arms because sometimes, individually or collectively, people have a need to kill other people.
What better for this than a weapon specifically designed to do so?

 

[AZrailwhale]

It also shows a basic ignorance. Every gun is designed for killing. It makes no difference wether the primary usage is military- killing the enemies of your country, civilian- killing other people who would harm you and your family, or hunting- killing animals for food. They all function the same, something (currently that is an explosive, but that’s subject to change) propels a projectile down a hollow cylinder with enough force for the projectile to kill its intended target. Many current military rifles can fire multiple rounds with one trigger pull, but many can’t. Making distinctions between single round, burst fire and fully automatic is like calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Useless mental masterbation. If a citizen is foolish enough to want an M-2 machine gun that fires rounds that cost ten bucks each, more power to him. If he wants a .22 caliber target rifle that fires single rounds that costs a nickel a round more power to him.

Mis post

 

[AZrailwhale]

...both, military weapons....

... NOT a military weapon....

Correct

 

[M14 Shooter]

I dont know, I just picked the largest and hardest to kill land animal I could think of. I could have just easily picked a Kodiak Bear or Siberian Tiger for an example. The same logic applies; overkill is your friend when you are dealing with something or someone that can kill you.

And, to follow up with the obvious:
-People- can kill you.

When you have to defend yourself, there's no argument for less gun than you handle.

 

[Rumpole]

And yet, you refuse to accept, or understand, the terms as they are used and explained to you.

Let's cut it short:
The AR15 - the rifle demonozed by the anti-gun left - is -not- a military weapon.

Please understand that I do not speak for others, unless I specifically state it.

-No military has ever issued them to its personnel
-No battle has ever been fought my any military using them as issued to its troops.
-It is serviceable for evry legal use an average citizen might have for a firearm.

The fact it LOOKS like a military weapons does not in any way shape or for MAKE it a military weapon.

Did I make a specific reference to the AR - 15 (in this forum)?

And even THEN... even if the AR15 IS a military weapon, it does not in any way shape of form mean the average citizen has no legal use or one, or no constitutuonally protected right to own one.

Okay, please quote me where I 'refused to accept......(etc)'.

I'm curious.

 

[Rumpole]

I dont know, I just picked the largest and hardest to kill land animal I could think of. I could have just easily picked a Kodiak Bear or Siberian Tiger for an example. The same logic applies; overkill is your friend when you are dealing with something or someone that can kill you.

If you were using a metaphor for 'having more than enough firepower to defend' make that point clear.

But, there are limits. No matter how big of a gun you think you need, I do not believe .50 cal machine guns, anti-tank rocket launchers, RPGs, nukes, etc, should be allowed to be owned by the public. Any criminals in possession of these should be incarcerated for a long long time (nukes should be for life without parole).

 

[Rumpole]

And the 2nd protects thr right to keep and bear arms because sometimes, individually or collectively, people have a need to kill other people.
What better for this than a weapon specifically designed to do so?

What circumstance would require an individual to own an anti-tank rocket launcher?

How about a .50 cal fully automatic machine gun?

Even Heller, as I understand it, acknowledges the government's right to regulate (within constraints set by Heller, and elsewhere).

In case you raise the DICTA argument; as I understand it, it is important to note that dicta are not binding precedent, so comments made by Justice Scalia in dicta do not establish the law in the same way that the Court's holding does.

However, is it not true that, In the case of of Heller, Justice Scalia wrote in dicta that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited? Which is to say, It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." He went on to explain that the government has the authority to regulate certain types of weapons, such as those that are "dangerous and unusual."

The important thing is, that although this statement by Justice Scalia does not create a binding precedent, it is significant because it reflects the opinion of a Supreme Court justice and may be considered persuasive authority in future cases. However, it is up to future courts to determine the scope and extent of the government's authority to regulate arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Did I make a specific reference to the AR - 15 (in this forum)?

You -clearly- aren't willing to have an honest discussion.
Let me know when you are.

 

[Rumpole]

You -clearly- aren't willing to have an honest discussion.
Let me know when you are.

would you answer my question please? you appear be addressing a point I didn't make. I don't recall mentioning AR 15s, on this forum, so i ask you for a quote. It's possible my recollection is faulty.

That is a reasonable request.

ANd please confine your comments to my posts made to this forum. On another forum, I have an entirely different purpose, you can't quote me there, And the reason is because I use another and other forums to test ideas, to gage reactions and to learn from those reactions, not to own them, particularly. That is not the case here.

so, don't accuse me of that which you do not have sufficient information to render such an accusation.

 

[Rumpole]

Funny how quiet they get when you ask the simple question...."What sensible gun control laws.....?"

Then all of a sudden they stop responding...

and who are they? No generalities, please.

 

[2aguy]

and who are they? No generalities, please.

Yeah...still waiting for you to point out your "Sensible gun laws....."

Trying to distract us isn't going to work...

 

[2aguy]

If you were using a metaphor for 'having more than enough firepower to defend' make that point clear.

But, there are limits. No matter how big of a gun you think you need, I do not believe .50 cal machine guns, anti-tank rocket launchers, RPGs, nukes, etc, should be allowed to be owned by the public. Any criminals in possession of these should be incarcerated for a long long time (nukes should be for life without parole).

Yeah...those are not bearable arms....bearable arms are protected by the Constitution, in particular, those suited for military purposes............the distraction you guys always try with nukes and grenades is stupid....

How about you focus on "bearable arms," those, according to Justice Ginsburg that you can wear, bear or carry in your coat or on your person.....

 

[Rumpole]

Yeah...those are not bearable arms....bearable arms are protected by the Constitution, in particular, those suited for military purposes............the distraction you guys always try with nukes and grenades is stupid....

How about you focus on "bearable arms," those, according to Justice Ginsburg that you can wear, bear or carry in your coat or on your person.....

I'm fine with that. But make sure some 6' 8" 400 pounder who could carry a .50 cal machine doesn't misinterpret the standard. The point is, there should be an itemized list of what is bearable, and all gun owners should have it in their possession.

The argument, for me, isn't about bearable arms, it's about permits for conceal and carry, licensing, background checks, etc.