More evidence why gun ownership should always be legal

I think the real test is whether the gun is useful for anything but killing obscene numbers of people without any practical application outside of that. Fully automatic weapons, for instance, weapons like an UZI which have no hunting application and aren't necessary for defending one's home. Self defense and hunting are the only justifiable uses for a weapon in this day and age. That and competition shooting.
 
ib1yysguy said:
I can't define pornography either, and neither could SCOTUS. Does pornography not exist?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that they don't exist (yes I know I said the exact opposite earlier), I'm arguing the term is ambiguous and has no actual meaning as it applies to firearms. Or anything for that matter. In literal terms, anything used to assault someone would be an assault weapon.
 
ib1yysguy said:
I think the real test is whether the gun is useful for anything but killing obscene numbers of people without any practical application outside of that. Fully automatic weapons, for instance, weapons like an UZI which have no hunting application and aren't necessary for defending one's home. Self defense and hunting are the only justifiable uses for a weapon in this day and age. That and competition shooting.
Click to expand...
And the original intent of the 2A? Defending our nation from enemies and the possibility of a tyrannical government? Further, there are several competitions, national and international, for automatic shooting.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
I'm not arguing that they don't exist (yes I know I said the exact opposite earlier), I'm arguing the term is ambiguous and has no actual meaning as it applies to firearms. Or anything for that matter. In literal terms, anything used to assault someone would be an assault weapon.
Click to expand...

Yes, the term is ambiguous. That doesn't mean reasonable people can't come to agreements on reasonable restrictions on dangerous things, like preventing violent felons from owning them for instance.
 
ib1yysguy said:
I think the real test is whether the gun is useful for anything but killing obscene numbers of people without any practical application outside of that. Fully automatic weapons, for instance, weapons like an UZI which have no hunting application and aren't necessary for defending one's home. Self defense and hunting are the only justifiable uses for a weapon in this day and age. That and competition shooting.
Click to expand...

the weapon MUST be useful for defending against enemies of the constitution, foreign and domestic. defense of home and hunting are secondary aspects and benefits only. Are you saying that in 'this day and age' there will never be a need to defend against oppression from our governments?
 
ib1yysguy said:
Yes, the term is ambiguous. That doesn't mean reasonable people can't come to agreements on reasonable restrictions on dangerous things, like preventing violent felons from owning them for instance.
Click to expand...

And if you're only restricting those that have proven a danger to society, you have no opposition. Hell, even our constitution says you can have your rights taken away by due process of law.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
And the original intent of the 2A? Defending our nation from enemies and the possibility of a tyrannical government? Further, there are several competitions, national and international, for automatic shooting.
Click to expand...

It's always struck me as such a childish, redneck fantasy and such a weak ass argument for permitting the sale and deregulated distribution of firearms designed to kill people that someday the government is going to decide to go Nazi and turn against its own people. It's just so retarded.

And automatic shooting competitions aren't any reason at all to justify deregulating automatic weapons for wider distribution.
 
Yurt said:
no....property is land...unique....autos are chattel....i'm not going to look up all the case law etc on this....but come on....autos are personal property STY....look it up, trust me....only real property is true property...all else is chattel, which is personal property, intellectual property etc.....
Click to expand...
are autos chattel or are they property? because you're using the term property in 'personal property'.

Yurt said:
so you are willing to allow anyone...to hop on a plane....a boeing 7E7...so long as their flight is not "commerical"......that is their liberty....to fly any plane they want, a 7E7.....they don't need a license or YOU to tell them they are forbidden......and i mean anyone.....
Click to expand...
yeah, anyone, because (trust me on this) having had some flight time and experience myself, if you don't know what you're doing, all you're going to do is create a big fireball at the end of the runway. no more worrying about THAT person being in the air.

Yurt said:
i understand what point you believe we are "now".....but without any government, what point do you think we would be at?
Click to expand...
this is a common fallacy argument pointed at Libertarians. The idea that we are 'no government' ideologues and this just isn't true. I'd appreciate keeping the strawman out of the debate.

Yurt said:
so far....anyone can fly any plane anytime they want.....
so far....anyone can drive any car anytime they want.....
so far....anyone can own a 25 ton nuclear missile with 10 warheads....

is this right?
Click to expand...
with the exception of the nuclear missile, yes. the missile is useless for defending against your oppressive government, therefore it has no protection under the 2nd Amendment.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the weapon MUST be useful for defending against enemies of the constitution, foreign and domestic. defense of home and hunting are secondary aspects and benefits only. Are you saying that in 'this day and age' there will never be a need to defend against oppression from our governments?
Click to expand...

Yup. I'm saying the situation will never arise where you need to fight against a tyrannical US government.

Don't even think about bringing up Waco or Ruby Ridge. If you want to break the law and fight law enforcement, it's not the tyranny of government that's the problem.
 
ib1yysguy said:
It's always struck me as such a childish, redneck fantasy and such a weak ass argument for permitting the sale and deregulated distribution of firearms designed to kill people that someday the government is going to decide to go Nazi and turn against its own people. It's just so retarded.
Click to expand...
The below people agree with you. it's retarded.
gun_control_works2.jpg
 
ib1yysguy said:
It's always struck me as such a childish, redneck fantasy and such a weak ass argument for permitting the sale and deregulated distribution of firearms designed to kill people that someday the government is going to decide to go Nazi and turn against its own people. It's just so retarded.
Click to expand...
I hardly consider it a weak argument, since such a thing was the foundation of our country. That is, whether you like it or not, the original intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment, and indeed the Bill of Rights as a whole. An armed citizenry is the ultimate and final check against the possibility of a tyrannical government.
And automatic shooting competitions aren't any reason at all to justify deregulating automatic weapons for wider distribution.
Click to expand...

It does if you're arguing sporting use.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Yup. I'm saying the situation will never arise where you need to fight against a tyrannical US government.

Don't even think about bringing up Waco or Ruby Ridge. If you want to break the law and fight law enforcement, it's not the tyranny of government that's the problem.
Click to expand...

I will bring it up, because your sheeple minded attitude apparently believes that it's ok for the government to attempt to entrap, coerce, intimidate, and finally assault a family for not going along with their little informant scam. but that's not tyranny at all, is it?
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
I hardly consider it a weak argument, since such a thing was the foundation of our country. That is, whether you like it or not, the original intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment, and indeed the Bill of Rights as a whole. An armed citizenry is the ultimate and final check against the possibility of a tyrannical government.


It does if you're arguing sporting use.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't at all. It's completely retarded to say that because some people want to go have fun with fully automatic weapons that it would be wise to make them widely available. People can go have fun in other ways that aren't going to make fully automatic weapons more readily available to people who will misuse them.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Hardly any fantasy I would enjoy. But again, that's just your opinion, just like the possibility of it happening is my opinion. But I am not trying to impose my will or thoughts or ideology on others, whereas you are.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah you are. Supporting the idea that we should deregulate firearms and being a member of the NRA is very much actively working to impose your will and thoughts and ideology on the rest of us. Don't pretend that your stance is nonideological.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top