How To Argue For Gun Control.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Maccabee, Jul 27, 2016.

  1. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    260
    How am I'm cherry picking if I stated that the only chance of you having a chance of shooting more people faster is if you have a drum or belt fed machine gun? If anything, I'm acknowledging that certain guns in certain configurations can theoretically be used that way. However as I said, the drum for the M4/M16 makes the gun unwieldy and you'd be hard pressed to find a drum that works reliably. And something like a SAW is also unwieldy. Therefore since criminals are naturally lazy, they go for practicability rather than what can potentially be effective if they work for it. You can say that there are automatic pistols with the capability to shoot from a drum magazine, however they are highly inaccurate on full auto.
    Because it's irrelevant when they both have the potential to kill people.

    Yes and no. Yes, logically speaking why should we ban one item that killed less people than either bombs or cars? No, that isn't the reason why I want them unregulated, at least it isn't the main reason. I want them unregulated because of (1) the constitution, (2) they provide law abiding citizens somewhat of an equal footing to the government in case it turn tyrannical or in the case that we're invaded, and (3) they look like fun to shoot.

    I am even willing to make a compromise to make them unregulated. If you pass the same background check that we currently have to get your average hunting rifle, you can also buy an automatic weapon with the same process.
    Why is that relevant?
     
  2. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,831
    Likes Received:
    15,005
    If we ever have a shoot out at high noon, I'll take the fully automatic M16 with standard 30 round magazine and you can have the semi auto 8 clip M1 Garand.

    Criminals are naturally lazy?

    So it's irrelevant that a trucks primary purpose is to haul goods and a machine guns primary purpose is to lay down a continuous hail of bullets at a high rate of fire to kill people?
    Same it's it's irrelevant that a cement block is used to built things and a hydrogen bomb is designed to do the opposite. They're both really the same. I mean either can kill a person.

    Now to your argument. Why should we ban machine guns when they have killed less people than cars? First of all I don't know that they have killed less people than cars. Do you have statistics to back that up, or are you just guessing? I mean the machine gun has been around since 1886 and has been used in every war since, not to mention coups, assassinations, crimes, etc.

    1. The Constitution says nothing about the type of firearms allowed, only that firearms are allowed. That can mean all firearms, or as the Supreme Court has consistently ruled, only certain types of firearms.

    2. You are advocating a violent overthrow of the United States government...and you think small arms fire would accomplish that?
    How could a law obeying citizen overthrow his or her own government? Wouldn't that make him or her a traitor and therefor not law abiding?

    3. Some people think it's fun to blow things up with TNT, shall we sell it in K Mart?

    You can already buy automatic weapons if you meet the requirements as outlined by the law, as they are regulated.

    You don't seem to understand that almost anything can be used to kill a person but some thinks can do it much easier and quicker and have no other function. theses objects tend to more dangerous than he other objects, and so they are more highly regulated.
     
  3. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    260
    You got a deal. What are the rules? Is it like how they did it in the old west or are we playing army?

    Sure, if they they weren't, they wouldn't be criminals in the first place. You and I work for our money. A criminal sees an easy picking and take it.


    It's irrelevant when one thing kills 80 people and the other with its semi auto variant kills only 50.


    If cement blocks are killing people at or above the rate of nuclear bombs (setting aside the fact that nukes are radioactive) then I'm might question the logic of prohibiting said nukes.


    I thought we were talking about civilian lives. Therefore I said machine guns killed less people than cars.


    It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you prohibit me from certain arms then you're infringing upon my right to keep and bear it.


    First off, we held our own until the French came in the war of independence. So while we may not have a chance of winning, at least we aren't completely defenseless. Secondly I don't advocate overthrowing the legitimate government of the United States. It's when it becomes tyrannical by forcibly taking away our rights is when it becomes illegitimate.


    Well in the technical sense, yeah. However it's the government's job to keep its end of abiding by the constitution. So a more proper term for those defending the constitution is constitutional law abiding citizens.


    The last one was a joke but there used to be a time were you can buy explosives from your local hardware store.


    However the process and cost is prohibitive.

    I do understand. However it's illogical to say we need to regulate something that killed less civilian people than cars.
     
  4. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Mac


    So at what point will you begin shooting police officers?

    I mean you seem to be saying that one of the main reasons why you want to have guns is to protect the US from political tyranny, but when do you act when do you begin and how?

    When do you begin using your gun against your political opponents?
     
  5. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,831
    Likes Received:
    15,005
    I'm disregarding your first points as they don't make much sense.
    1. So as long as you can bear some type of arms, that's covered. Nothing about the right to bear every type of weapon ever invented.

    2. Why are you bring the revolutionary war into this?
    You don't advocate over throwing the legitimate U.S. government...... just when you don't agree with it, or I don't agree with it, or the KKK doesn't agree with it, or the tree huggers don't agree with it, or the local PTA doesn't agree with it, etc.

    And you believe it's up to individual citizens to enforce their interpretation of the Constitution by use of violent force and insurrection, thus overriding the Presidency, Congress, and the court system. In effect, disregarding the Constitution.
    So any group that doesn't agree with lawful government procedures, such as .....oh, a local town council voting to remove a statue, can be shot by any citizen who disagrees? (As long as they can justify to themselves that the removal would violate their right to free speech as outlined in the Constitution)

    3. Yes, there was time when you could buy explosives much easier than now, until it was deemed they were pretty dangerous in the hands of ordinary citizens...like machine guns.

    What's wrong with regulating a weapon that has been very destructive in the hands of civilians in the past and has the potential to be very destructive now and in the future?
    Our society can function without civilian machine guns very well. It would have a hard time functioning without trucks and cars at the present time...and they are regulated as they are recognized as being dangerous.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    260
    When they start going door to door confiscating guns or start arresting people in mass for saying something politically incorrect. Basically, when the government makes it obvious that they are out to infringe upon our rights.
     
  7. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    260
    It doesn't say some. It simply says "bear arms." If it said "the right of the people to free speech" is it saying "some speech" or all speech as long as the speech doesn't infringe upon another person's rights? If you agree with the former then how is me owning an automatic weapon infringing upon your rights as long as I'm safe with it?

    To point out that just because we may be outgunned, doesn't automatically means a loss.

    No, when the government starts going door to door taking guns, that's when it becomes tyrannical.

    No. I strongly advocate that we use the legal system to the fullest. The only time that the people have the right to revolt is when the government starts forcibly infringing upon our rights. Put it this way, if President Trump is as bad as you say he is and start rounding up liberals into concentration camps and executing them, would you go along with it?

    That's not tyrannical. No rights are being infringed upon. Just stupidity.

    And did the NFA quell crimes and accidents by explosives? This is just speculation but it seems at the very least, crimes with explosives rose after the NFA. I don't recall too many attacks back in the 1800s.

    It's kinda hard to argue that automatic weapons are very destructive in life when more people died from pistols. If you want to ban anything, it should be them.

    Society can also function without cars. Either we go back to horse and buggy or everybody take public transportation like trains and buses.

    Actually we can.
     
  8. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,831
    Likes Received:
    15,005
    1. Free speech verses bearing arms.
    The primary function of a Representative Republic is to protect its citizens from various types of harm. It does this in a number of ways.

    In regards to speech the U.S. Constitution protects speech as long as it doesn't harm another individual or conglomerate, you can't yell fire in a crowed movie theater.
    The rights of the individual are restricted for the benefit of the majority.

    In the case of firearms, the Constitution protects your right to bear arms as long as those arms are not deemed to be an unacceptable risk to society. Machine guns have been determined to be an unacceptable risk to society.
    The rights of the individual are restricted for the benefit of the majority.

    2. Government tyranny.
    Your argument is a classic example of circular reasoning.
    Why do we need guns?
    To stop a tyrannical government.
    How do we know when the government is tyrannical?
    When it starts taking our guns.
    The only reason the government is seen as tyrannical is because I want to own a gun and society as a whole, the government, and the laws made by our elected representatives and upheld by the courts, has determined that that gun presents an unacceptable risk to society; just like yelling fire in a crowed movie theater.
    By your own reasoning, I have just as much cause to overthrow the government because I can't yell fire anytime I want to. The tyrants.

    The government already forcibly restricts our rights. They have thousands of people who do that. Our rights are defined in the Constitution and if you exceed those rights you may be forcibly restricted.
    The problem is you believe you get to define what those rights are, not society as a whole. You believe you get to use firearms to decide if a law is just.
    You say you would use the legal system to its fullest, but if the courts don't agree with you, then you will start shooting.

    Then you present a false analogy. If Trump were to go rouge and violate the Constitution by executing people in concentration camps....that's an entirely different scenario than the police confiscating your illegal machine gun.
    For Trump to accomplish what you're suggesting would require a complete failure of every branch of government and the military as we now know it.

    Next you claim violence initiated because of a statue being removed is stupid. I agree, the problem is that, that is where you draw the line, others may not.
    You would only shoot a police officer if he asks for your gun, as directed by law; others might have a lower bar for shooting the poor guy who is just doing his job.

    3. Explosives.
    You say crimes with explosives rose after explosives were restricted. So what? Times are different, there are many factors that contribute to crime and the methods of criminals. There are lots more people in the world since 1800, lots more unrest, lots more types of explosives, much easier access to bomb making instructions , etc.
    The question is, would it be much worse without restrictions on explosives? If you think that allowing everyone free access to all types of unregulated explosives will cut down down on their being used violently; then I would have to say that is wishful thinking.

    4. Machine guns.
    Machine guns are highly regulated, they aren't common. Pistols are not as highly regulated, there are thousands upon thousands more pistols in the public arena than machine guns.

    5. Cars
    Really? Our society can present function without cars and trucks! Take a ride down route 81 or 95 some time and count the trucks and cars on the road.
    You think we can replace them with horses and buggies! Read a little history of what a city was like with only horses and buggies to transport people and goods.
    I agree we could switch to trains for long haul freight and public transport in urban areas..but are you going to pay for the complete restructuring of the entire nation to do this...overnight?

    Tell me please, how are you going to accomplish this? How many years will it take? Where will the funds come from?
    Etcetera.

    By the way, we can also live without the public owning any guns.
     
  9. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    260
    If that's the case then why are bump fire stocks are available with no background check whatsoever?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U7DTjSla-O8

    This stock allows you to emulate automatic fire while still being within the confines of the law. If automatic weapons are as dangerous to the public as you say it is then why aren't we hearing more cases of active shooters using this device?


    That's a faulty argument when pistols kill more people than any type of long in combined.


    When it starts taking our guns and arresting people for voicing a politically incorrect view as I said to another poster.


    If you exceed those rights then you're not exercising your rights at all. I have the right to free speech. However if I'm blasting heavy metal at 3 AM and someone complains then I infringed on his right to peace.


    No, when the government starts executing people for having a different opinion then I'll start shooting.


    And that's what I'm talking about. A complete failure of our government.


    Actually I wouldn't. I'm talking about basically a martial law scenario. If an officer were to come for my firearms right now I would give it to him and fight it in court because we have a stable government.


    So that shows a complete failure of the NFA.


    Not overnight but we can do it gradually. If we did, are you willing to not drive and choose for yourself were to go without paying someone else?

    Answered above.

    We could, but then violent crime and knife attacks would rise as seen in Britain.
     
  10. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,831
    Likes Received:
    15,005
    I know what bump stocks are, it's called a loop hole.
    Pistols a deemed to have some value such as self protection, fully automatic pistols are heavily regulated.
    And as I said before, you express your willingness to kill government officials if they legally confiscate your guns or you get arrested for some outlawed speech, such as slander. The Supreme Court has already upheld the right to express hate speech and we see attacks on politicians daily from both sides.
    So any legal exercise of either of these concerns can be addressed in court, legally, without violence.
    But you insist on your right to kill those you don't agree with.
    First, shooting off a gun at 3 AM has nothing to do with free speech. Unless you're some crazy idiot trying to get noticed and wish to claim that by firing a gun at 3 AM you're expressing your right to free speech.
    But you seem to understand the concept.
    Machine gun ownership has been deemed to violate the right of ordinary citizens to live in a relatively safe environment.
    If it ever comes to that point I'm sure it'll be to late.
    So, who you gonna shoot? The arresting officer, jailer, judge, jury, executioner, some politician?
    Don't you think a much better plan is to have an educated population and honest representatives who never allow it to get to this point.
    Isn't it wiser to work toward that end then to stockpile guns?
    See above. The way to safe guard our government is by educating the public, not by stockpiling arms.
    The founding fathers didn't hand out weapons to everyone they met and say shoot anyone who violates your rights. They set up a legal document called the Constitution and then enabled laws and eventually a public education system to educate the public on how the Constitution works.
    "I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
    And that's the way it should be, these matters need to be addressed legally.
    But as far as martial law, various levels of government have declared martial law twelve times, and the nation still endures.
    No it shows that times have changed, as I stated before.
    Yes, we can gradually shift from a car based society to a mass transit system...if the government decides to do that.
    We already pay to drive where ever we want in the form of auto registrations, road and gas taxes and tolls, and health effects from auto pollution.
    I don't know what statics you're referring to when you say that less guns exclusively equals more violence with no other factors being involved.
    Ever looked down the wrong end of a gun? Given no other choice, I'd rather face an opponent with a knife than a gun.
     
  11. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    260
     
  12. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,831
    Likes Received:
    15,005
    There are many legal loopholes.

    Bump stocks decrease the accuracy of the weapon as it's jumping around, they also may lead to a premature firing before the bolt is closed resulting in injury to the holder of the weapon.
    Other than that who knows why bad guys do what they do. In my opinion bump stocks should be outlawed.

    The 2nd is about the right to bear arms, not what kind of arms.
    You never said you would kill a government official if they were instructed to legally take away your gun. So what's your argument for having guns to fight a corrupt government?
    I don't understand. Who gets to decide the government is corrupt and we should start shooting?
    If a law is passed that says..oh something like, all .32 Colt Semiautomatics have been deemed to be illegal, and the government comes to take your .32. What do you do if you disagree?
    If a law is passed that says..oh something like all, M4 Colt Semiautomatic carbines have been deemed to be illegal, and the government comes to take your M4. What do you do if you disagree?

    Your argument revolves around how much you respect the laws of the country and use them to the umpth degree.....but then you turn around and say we have the right to overthrow the government if it becomes "corrupt".
    So please define corruption exactly. As any law that the government passes is legal until deemed illegal by other branches of the government, at which time it would be illegal...you'll have to explain your logic to me.

    When do we start shooting and who decides?

    I'm not getting into searching every single law that reduced guns and how it affected crime, you already refuse to believe that the registration of machine guns worked.

    I'll just leave this.
     
  13. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    260
    For one, true automatic weapons are also inaccurate. For another, why do you want to ban something that literally killed no one and you even admit criminals don't use?
    The quote is mostly opinion. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. You cannot infringe on what I carry or keep.

    If the system absolutely crumbles and the government start putting people in concentration camps.

    Hide whatever 32. Colt semiautomatics I own. If they find them, I'll fight it in court. That's assuming that they're not registered. In either New York or New Jersey there was a law passed to register all so called assault rifles. Thousands peacefully refused to the point that I believe they scrapped the law because it failed at it's objective.

    See above.

    I have defined it. When I'm talking about a corrupt government, I'm talking about a level equivalent to Hitler or Stalin.

    Which that has been debunked. In fact, Australian gun ownership is about the same as it was before the but back.

    http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/469185?section=US&keywords=guns-control-britain-australia&year=2012&month=12&date=27&id=469185&aliaspath=%2fManage%2fArticles%2fTemplate-Main&oref=www.bing.com

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/
     
  14. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,831
    Likes Received:
    15,005
    Mac,
    Machine guns in the hands of a properly trained person are pretty accurate. Short bursts of 3 to 5 rounds are best as the barrel doesn't have time to over heat. Additionally at close range you don't need to worry about much accuracy.

    Machine guns have killed thousands upon thousands.

    The quote is not opinion, it's a quote from the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER, 2008

    The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times on what you're allowed to arm yourself with, when, and where.
    If you disagree and take matters into your own hands, you are then breaking the law.

    When the system crumbles and people are sent to concentration camps where they are held without legal rights? Like present day GTMO, or the concentration of Japanese, Italians, and Germans during WWII?
    Sounds like you're a little late.

    When a law is passed, if you disagree with that law, you claim the right to refuse to obey it.
    Sounds like every common criminal in the world.

    You have not defined what corrupt acts the government would have to take for you to rebel, except for the formation of concentration camps, which is what GTMO is. A place to confine and torture undesirables without trial and in violation of the Geneva Convention.
    So on that basis you should have started the rebellion under George Bush back in 2002. Or don't those people count?

    Your first link provides no data at all.
    Your second link was about how to implement a gun buy back program, nothing about crime rates.


    But all that doesn't matter.
    There's no data that proves that the regulation of arsenic has led to a decline or increase in murders.
    Certain weapons have no utilitarian use in the hands of civilians and removing them just in case they are harmful is perfectly logical and legal. You still have access to other weapons to arm yourself with as per the 2nd.
     
  15. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    260
    Bump stocks in the hands of properly trained people are also accurate. Yet we have not one case of an active shooter using such an device. Back to your point about three or five round bursts, even if you are accurate, more likely your shooting one person with three or five rounds, not shooting three or five people with one bullet. You're more likely to be more effective by switching to semi auto and conserving ammo.
    For one I was referring to bump stocks not killing anyone and for another, most of those deaths by machine guns were from wars. By your logic, we should ban M1 Garands because they've killed thousands.

    I disagree and I'll do what is accordance to law to change it.
    Better late than never.

    By that logic, should we ban Lamborghinis because they have no utilitarian use and are potential danger to the public?
     
  16. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,831
    Likes Received:
    15,005
    I don't believe bump stocks are illegal.
    My logic is that certain weapons have been deemed to be unnecessary for hunting, self defense, or target shooting, and regulating them doesn't infringe on the 2nd.

    I'm glad you will seek to change laws by legal means rather than overthrowing the government.

    I'm a little confused about GTMO. Are you saying you think we should have taken up arms against the government in regards to GTMO?
    Are you prepared to do that now?

    Lamborghinis are used to transport people, they are regulated (as all cars are) and heavily taxed as luxury cars in some areas.
     
  17. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    260
    I didn't say they are illegal. In fact, you can buy them over the Internet. I'm asking you why you want them illegal when they haven't been used in a mass shooting.

    We have the bill of rights, not the bill of needs, first of all. Nobody needs a Lamborghini. Should we ban them because they serve little purpose? Secondly, the second amendment, by the very wording, is to give us a fighting chance against a tyrannical government. The fact that you can defend yourself, hunt, and target practice with the second amendment protection is a byproduct of that right.

    As of now, the government is willing to listen to the people. So a call to arms isn't necessary.

    A Honda Civic acomplish the same thing. Why should Lamborghinis be as fast as they are when you're legally not able to put it to it's potential?
     
  18. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,831
    Likes Received:
    15,005
    I want lots of things to be illegal. And other things that are illegal, legal.
    Bump stocks are a loop hole, unnecessary, unneeded, and potentially dangerous. But just because I don't like them doesn't really mean anything.

    The 2nd amendment can be interpreted differently.
    We've gone over this before. well regulated militias have never been used against the U.S. government, only in support of that government.
    Citizens have never had the right to own guns outside of a well regulated militia until 2008 when in a 5 to 4 decision the Supreme Court said that D.C. couldn't ban handguns within its limits. They upheld the restriction of guns that served no law abiding purpose.

    So certain concentration camps don't qualify. Only ones you don't like.

    I'm not gong to be further distracted by your attempt to equate automobiles with weapons.
     
  19. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,463
    Likes Received:
    260
    Thank God for that. But you still didn't answered the question. Why do you want to ban bump stocks but not Lamborghinis when both are unnecessary, unneeded, and potentially dangerous?

    That's not true. We had the individual right to keep and bear arms since even before it was written into the Bill of Rights. It's just that over the years gun controllers have passed laws that never been challenged until recently. Every other right listed where it says "the people," it always referred to the individual. Why is it different with the second? If it said "a well regulated news journal, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to free speech shall not be infringed," would you be making the same argument as you are now with the right to keep and bear arms? Another thing to consider is why would the government give itself the right to own guns. You mean to tell me that every other country didn't had an army because they didn't gave themselves the right?
    Recreational shooting is completely law abiding. What's it to you if I want to blow $100 on ammo in a few seconds?

    No. I'm saying that as of now the government listens to us.
    Why? It's completely reasonable to do so.
     
  20. soulcompromise

    soulcompromise Member Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,662
    Likes Received:
    11,813
    "About two-thirds of homicides involve firearms. To be a bit more precise, just over half involve a handgun, and the remaining firearm-related homicides involve a shotgun, rifle, or another undetermined firearm."

    I read this in my sociology textbook and I couldn't help but think of this thread. :)

    Macabee, the above sounds like a valid argument in support of stricter gun control.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice