2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Tom_G on August 22, 2014, 06:35:27 PM
-
Sigh. I can't believe I am about to do this.
A video came across my facebook feed, someone being interviewed on CNN who didn't understand the difference between the terms "semi automatic" and "automatic." Fair enough, grounds for criticism, terminology matters. But his point, that an easily-obtainable weapon can be used to harm many people in a short period of time, is not invalid. Rather than acknowledge the point, conservatives use the lack of proper terminology as a ground to attack the man on an ad hominem level.
This is the type of gun nut bias that sickens me.
So many of you love to say "the similarities between military and civilian models are cosmetic only." Do you believe what you are shoveling? Because I do not.
Those "cosmetic only" differences include things like rapid target acquisition, easy of deployment, speed of magazine replacement, magazine capacity. These "cosmetic only" differences spring from something that was designed, from the ground up, as a tool to kill enemy soldiers. Yes, ABSOLUTELY, I agree that the differences between semi-auto, select fire, burst fire, and full-auto are ASTOUNDINGLY important, but the mere fact that a civilian rifle has been restricted to semi-automatic only does not obviate the other design features that make it an effective mankiller.
To those of you who say "It's just a hunting rifle dressed in black," I say bullshit. No one, and I daresay that you yourselves are included in that list, no one believes what you are selling.
Pissed? Good. Now read juuuust a little further before flaming me, please. I beg that indulgence.
Guns styled after military arms are designed as weapons. Weapons, by definition, are intended to hurt people. Take a minute and look it up, I'll wait. Done? Did you find a definition from a respected authority on the English language that disagreed? I sure didn't.
May I suggest that you stop with the bullshit? The antis say "but those assault weapons are designed to kill lots of people quickly!" Instead of lying "no, no, they aren't they're just modern sporting rifles," might I suggest we try being truthful? "Yes, yes, they are. And, God willing, I will never have to use that ability. But if the need arises, if I find myself standing alone against a sea of looters, or rioters, or home invaders, I will be ready." Someone more eloquent than me can come up with a catchphrase.
Seriously, people. You know how ridiculous the rabid antis look to you? That is exactly how ridiculous you look to them. Which matters not at all. But it is also exactly how ridiculous you look to those in the middle, and that is the battle you're helping to lose for us.
Yep. I posted it on the internet. Problem fixed! ::)
-
You could use the same argument about a Colt Cap and Ball. It was designed to kill a lot of people without reloading. I believe it was conceived during the Civil war for just that purpose.
Personally, the US military trained me with military grade firearms, not $$ bolt action rifles.
I use what I am trained with, for whatever purpose that may come along. Would not want me using something not trained with, now.
I also drive a 4WD SUV, though I have yet to really need that capability.
Whoops, that might give some Priaps driver ideas on what to try and ban next....................
-
I don't care who agrees or disagrees. When you, Lemon or anyone else tries to persuade others to accept your opinions, and when you propose laws that affect everyone of us, then you need to demonstrate you understand the topic at hand.
Watching movies, playing COD, and talking to anti-gun supporters is normally the extent of these anti's knowledge. That in no way makes them qualified to decide for everyone what gun laws we must obey in an attempt to fix some general, ambiguous problem.
We have too many laws already passed by representatives who understood one thing about the bill: that their party told them which way to vote.
I completely disagree that calling someone out for being ignorant DURING A LIVE TV DEBATE is inappropriate. Perhaps in a less public and less important setting, both sides could put semantics (facts) aside and discuss their true thoughts on the subject with open minds.
Maybe you, Tom, don't see the need to confront misinformed and ignorant people's "facts" when they decide to hold a public discussion with you. But, remember, the people watching in the audience may NOT be so ignorant, and they may wonder if YOU know what you're talking about when you don't correct someone's obvious lack of basic knowledge.
-
Guns dont kill people, people kill people
-
I see your point Tom but letting someone control the argument buy falsely defining things to their benefit puts those defending their second amendment rights at a disadvantage. It's no longer an honest discussion.
I do believe the premise one should be arguing from is not the gun itself (as one can legally acquire fully automatic weapons which only makes them illegal in few states) but like what korupt pointed out guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Lots of anti gunners like to argue that civilians aren't trained like police or military so shouldn't have those kinds of weapons. I would argue that training is important but it doesn't equal to a respect for life or morality. Take Christopher Dorner for example. An LAPD officer well trained but no morals or respect for life. He used his knowledge and training for evil purposes.
-
I think what he's saying is rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments, you stick to the point and beat the other guy by showing your knowledge on the topic. No one is going to listen when they feel like they're being attacked, you're better off agreeing with the valid part of their argument while instructing them on the erroneous part.
A lot of anti-gun stuff is based on fear and ignorance. The "assault weapon" ban, for instance. How does a pistol grip or a flash hider make a weapon more deadly? It doesn't. That's where the education needs to come in but making fun of a guy because he calls a magazine a clip isn't furthering the argument, its just making you look petty.
-
you're better off agreeing with the valid part of their argument while instructing them on the erroneous part.
A lot of anti-gun stuff is based on fear and ignorance. The "assault weapon" ban, for instance. How does a pistol grip or a flash hider make a weapon more deadly? It doesn't. That's where the education needs to come in but making fun of a guy because he calls a magazine a clip isn't furthering the argument, its just making you look petty.
+1
I think that is a big part of Tom's point.
Also, that yes, they are designed for what their designed for and that's why we have them and why the 2nd amendment gave us the RIGHT to own them.
Semper Paratus.
-
So many of you love to say "the similarities between military and civilian models are cosmetic only." Do you believe what you are shoveling? Because I do not.
Those "cosmetic only" differences include things like rapid target acquisition, easy of deployment, speed of magazine replacement, magazine capacity. These "cosmetic only" differences spring from something that was designed, from the ground up, as a tool to kill enemy soldiers. Yes, ABSOLUTELY, I agree that the differences between semi-auto, select fire, burst fire, and full-auto are ASTOUNDINGLY important, but the mere fact that a civilian rifle has been restricted to semi-automatic only does not obviate the other design features that make it an effective mankiller.
To those of you who say "It's just a hunting rifle dressed in black," I say bullshit. No one, and I daresay that you yourselves are included in that list, no one believes what you are selling.
May I suggest that you stop with the bullshit? The antis say "but those assault weapons are designed to kill lots of people quickly!" Instead of lying "no, no, they aren't they're just modern sporting rifles," might I suggest we try being truthful? "Yes, yes, they are. And, God willing, I will never have to use that ability. But if the need arises, if I find myself standing alone against a sea of looters, or rioters, or home invaders, I will be ready." Someone more eloquent than me can come up with a catchphrase.
I agree that if the antis have their facts correct, arguing with them and getting defensive is wrong. If they are mature adults, reason with them as mature adults. I own AR-15 variants and AK-47 variants for shooting recreationally (which may include defensive training) and also because YES they are capable of incapacitating the enemy or many enemies if the unfortunate occasion arises.
-
Tomg,
The features you are referencing in the semi-auto version of the automatic version rifle are additions that are largely effective and designed exclusively for automatic weapon efficiency but when utilized in a semiautomatic provide little to no additional effectiveness in operational function relative to that of any modern day semi automatic rifle. Each of the additions on automatic rifles are there for automatic select and each has a purpose and extremely beneficial when used in automatic mode but they lend very little additional support or effectiveness when in semi auto mode.
You may as well be buying a formula 1 race car with a stock 4 cylinder yugo engine.
-
Tomg,
The features you are referencing in the semi-auto version of the automatic version rifle are additions that are largely effective and designed exclusively for automatic weapon efficiency but when utilized in a semiautomatic provide little to no additional effectiveness in operational function relative to that of any modern day semi automatic rifle. Each of the additions on automatic rifles are there for automatic select and each has a purpose and extremely beneficial when used in automatic mode but they lend very little additional support or effectiveness when in semi auto mode.
You may as well be buying a formula 1 race car with a stock 4 cylinder yugo engine.
See, that's exactly the sort of erroneous claim I'm talking about.
I don't have to go any farther than the HDF shoots to show you otherwise. I regularly see people who, by using compensators, vertical grips, and trigger modifications, place 10 rounds on target in under two seconds. And lots of practice, I don't want to diminish the part of the rifleman. A full-auto machine gun would be, at best, marginally more effective at the same task.
-
Tom_g,
Dumping 10 rounds on a target in under 2 seconds is a proof? A proof that a mentally disturbed individual could possibly execute some sort additional killing ability with an ar15 over a 12 gauge semi automatic shotgun or an average semi auto rifle? Bullshit.
-
I think you are missing Tom's point. The tool doesn't matter it's the person that makes it deadly in terms of if it used for good or evil. We shouldn't be arguing over the tool and what separates them from semi or full auto as it doesn't really matter.
-
A couple of catch phrases that come to mind:
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
And... an old interview of Jeff Cooper:
Reporter: "Mr Cooper, don't you think that violence only begets violence?"
Cooper: "I certainly hope so."
Reference: http://youtu.be/Iz6gYgqf8eI (http://youtu.be/Iz6gYgqf8eI)
-
My apologies. I don't argue with anti gun people, I simply educate them by asking them questions such as "what is an assault weapon?", "What sort of people kill other people?", "Why don't we have any legislation to keep guns out of "those" peoples hands?" Etc. I play ignorant on the topic and guide them through the educational process with questions. When I ran across the statement here, it pissed me off. Seriously? Lol.
-
Tom_g,
Dumping 10 rounds on a target in under 2 seconds is a proof? A proof that a mentally disturbed individual could possibly execute some sort additional killing ability with an ar15 over a 12 gauge semi automatic shotgun or an average semi auto rifle? Bullshit.
Why are you changing the topic? No, it is proof that a rifle designed to military philosophies but limited to semi-automatic is a more effective tool, despite its semi-auto limitation, than other tools with different design philosophies. I think you would have a difficult time engaging 5 targets per second with a semi-auto 12 gauge, and that it would be an impossible feat with a BAR (obviously, the civilian BAR, not the military antique, which would do the job nicely).
-
its like your yelling at the rain you cant do anything just frustrated hey kick up your feet and visit a drinky drinky bar with some bars girls and have some fun, you sound like someone's going postal on somenone. this is Hawaii we live with ALOHA here, people respect each other cause we NO KA OI that's why your living in Hawaii. You have a lot of hate in you, everyone is rationalizing but you breed hate just like the KKK breads hate, Do you know where Im going here? You should talk to the people in israel suicide bomber taking out public area like an entire block of civilians wipeout, thats hate you breading hate
-
The Rem 223 was design to inflict wounds to soldiers as per the Geneva Convention . It was not designed to kill people!
-
I disagree with saying that ars are designed to kill humans. As suka stated 223 is not the best cartridge. These rifles are designed to be user friendly and intuitive. This makes them ideal for people who don't have the time or drive to learn a clumsier system. They can become proficient with less trigger time, just what the military looks for in a system. I've hunted with and AR and know many people who do. They are popular in hunting, whether it be varmints in 223 or bigger game with 458 socom, 6.8 SPC, etc.
-
These rifles are designed to be user friendly and intuitive. This makes them ideal for people who don't have the time or drive to learn a clumsier system. They can become proficient with less trigger time, just what the military looks for in a system.
About 25 years ago I was woking in the Command Center of the Pacific, Hickam AFB as a contractor. Because we didn't have top secret clearance it was required we have an armed guard with us at all times. The guards always had a side arm until one day we got a guard with an M-16. I asked him "what's with the machine gun" and he said he didn't pass his pistol qualification.
-
I disagree with saying that ars are designed to kill humans. As suka stated 223 is not the best cartridge. These rifles are designed to be user friendly and intuitive. This makes them ideal for people who don't have the time or drive to learn a clumsier system. They can become proficient with less trigger time, just what the military looks for in a system. I've hunted with and AR and know many people who do. They are popular in hunting, whether it be varmints in 223 or bigger game with 458 socom, 6.8 SPC, etc.
I can cut drywall with a steak knife. It was still designed to cut steak. Last time I did this I cut my thumb badly (cutting drywall with a steak knife). Seriously just don't.
Anyway you can disagree all you want. Fact is that when Stoner, et al. designed the AR-15 in the 1950s it was for the Army (via the now defunct CONARC ORO)'s concept of generating casualties through large amounts of unaimed fire. They believed that putting large numbers of rounds downrange was the solution, and a smaller cartridge made sense since if you're just going to blast away then you better bring more ammo. Now whether or not that is/was a good concept, and whether or not the 5.56 is the best round is a different discussion - the fact is that the AR-15 was designed for CONARC's requirements - semi auto/full, 20rd mag, 6lbs loaded, penetrate army helmet at 500 yards. What do you think they were trying to do?
Oh right, kill people I mean uh.. it's the Army dude. But... I don't understand why this is such a big deal?
People don't seem to have this issue with handguns. Most handguns are designed to kill people. Oh noes!
Sure you could take a Glock and modify it to make it better for hunting. Longer barrel. Scope and what-not.
Is a Glock designed to kill people? Yes. So is the AR-15.
And that's OK.
I mean I get the "logic" behind this. Hey let's call them modern sporting rifles! Because you know.. hunting is a safe topic right? That way we get to keep our guns! Because yay hunting!
Fuck that. If you want to hunt with an AR, rock on brother. But I don't need to justify my ownership of an AR or any similar firearm for that reason anymore than an automobile enthusiast who purchases some 500bhp behemoth. My car is governed to 135mph and there's nowhere on this island I can legally drive it that fast.
It's not because I need to; it's because I have the right to.
-
I can cut drywall with a steak knife. It was still designed to cut steak. Last time I did this I cut my thumb badly (cutting drywall with a steak knife). Seriously just don't.
Anyway you can disagree all you want. Fact is that when Stoner, et al. designed the AR-15 in the 1950s it was for the Army (via the now defunct CONARC ORO)'s concept of generating casualties through large amounts of unaimed fire. They believed that putting large numbers of rounds downrange was the solution, and a smaller cartridge made sense since if you're just going to blast away then you better bring more ammo. Now whether or not that is/was a good concept, and whether or not the 5.56 is the best round is a different discussion - the fact is that the AR-15 was designed for CONARC's requirements - semi auto/full, 20rd mag, 6lbs loaded, penetrate army helmet at 500 yards. What do you think they were trying to do?
Oh right, kill people I mean uh.. it's the Army dude. But... I don't understand why this is such a big deal?
People don't seem to have this issue with handguns. Most handguns are designed to kill people. Oh noes!
Sure you could take a Glock and modify it to make it better for hunting. Longer barrel. Scope and what-not.
Is a Glock designed to kill people? Yes. So is the AR-15.
And that's OK.
I mean I get the "logic" behind this. Hey let's call them modern sporting rifles! Because you know.. hunting is a safe topic right? That way we get to keep our guns! Because yay hunting!
Fuck that. If you want to hunt with an AR, rock on brother. But I don't need to justify my ownership of an AR or any similar firearm for that reason anymore than an automobile enthusiast who purchases some 500bhp behemoth. My car is governed to 135mph and there's nowhere on this island I can legally drive it that fast.
It's not because I need to; it's because I have the right to.
That last line, Ladies and Gentlemen, is precisely the point.
As far as the "these guns were made to kill people" argument, they all were weapons of war to begin with. It is a progression of technology.
We have gone from muzzle loaders to single shot cartridge to lever action to bolt action to semi and full auto weapons. All of which, at some point, were the pinnacle of advanced weapons design for the military. All of which ended up in the hands of civilians and were converted for sporting usage and self defense.
Military advances of ALL types have made our lives easier, from communications to travel and navigation. The fact that weapons have followed this curve should hardly be surprising to anyone. What everyone seems to overlook is the responsibility of the user of said technology.
That, IMO, is where we really need to be working.
PS. Since I know I'll hear about it, revolvers should be included, for all the "wheelies" out there.
-
its like your yelling at the rain you cant do anything just frustrated
Yeah, that's pretty much how it feels.
-
Huh. I'm surprised at the number of you who are agreeing with me! Now, a few of you don't seem to realize that you're agreeing with me, but that's ok. Surprisingly, I feel much better!
-
The Rem 223 was design to inflict wounds to soldiers as per the Geneva Convention . It was not designed to kill people!
While I haven't (yet) read the treaties and protocols in their entirety, I think you're wrong on this one. The original three treaties, the three subsequent protocols, and the fourth treaty dealt (if the synopses are to be believed) with the treatment of prisoners, care of the wounded, and the rights of non-combatants. Weapons of war were not addressed at all, but are covered by the Hauge Conventions. And, incidentally, the US was one of the only nations which failed to ratify the section of the Hauge Convention pertaining to the use expanding or deforming projectiles.
[EDIT] Link to the appropriate section of the Hauge Convention (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp). I'm still looking for confirmation of the non-participation of the US.[/EDIT]
[EDIT] Found it. (http://archive.org/stream/hagueconventions00inteuoft/hagueconventions00inteuoft_djvu.txt) Looks like we we had some serious reservations. [/EDIT]
[EDIT] Further clarification: The US is not the only nation that did not sign, ratify, or act on this declaration of the convention. [/EDIT]
-
Last time I checked. All Semi and Full Auto Guns, Revolvers, Hammers, Needles, Knives, Spoons, Forks, Baseball Bats, Footballs, Baseballs, Golf Balls, Golf Clubs, Fists, Bottles, Cans, Computer Screens, Ipads & Tools
were Assault Weapons. Yup TOTAL BS
-
.
-
I'm having some difficulty following the original point of this thread.
Would someone please restate the original point, in one sentence?
Thanks!
Call a spade a spade.
-
.
-
Okay, check...now what?
You're golden! Go forth, and should you have conversations with people who opinions of spades differ from yours, don't resort to lying about spades being spades in attempt to further your cause. Instead, become excellent at enumerating the reasons why spades are good.
-
.
-
I like it, Tom_G.... thanks for breaking it down for me.
I have been doing what you suggest, all along, and I will continue to do so.
I will also continue to educate antis, to the degree that they are capable and willing to listen to, understand, and accept facts about firearms and responsible firearm ownership.
The danger, of course, is that the antis will not respond, in kind (i.e., with civility, respect, and reason).
And the main reason for this is human nature. When people realize they are wrong, they will grasp at straws to distract, misdirect, and otherwise confuse the issues to try and revive their dying agenda.
Some (most?) people hate to admit defeat when they believe deeply in something. They will fight to the bitter end even when they know they have been unable to support their positions with anything other than made up statistics and imagined violence should the "gun nuts" prevail.
It's ironic we have a large number of people in this country attacking peoples' religious beliefs as "myths." Yet, these same people are just as religious about gun control, socialized medicine, higher taxes for the "wealthy" and all the other Liberal utopian ideological causes, even though history has shown these Liberal ideals fail, or are less effective than other ideas, every time they are tried.
-
Star Trek Message on Guns For Defense: http://youtu.be/MEOShMgduAY (http://youtu.be/MEOShMgduAY)
-
Hey Tom.
Though I do agree with your "spade" moniker, the birth of firearms were for military applications, therefore, ALL guns are derived from military versions.
I believe you should have posted this in "Drunken Posting" to get more concise opinions. :rofl:
:shaka:
-
Hey Tom.
Though I do agree with your "spade" moniker, the birth of firearms were for military applications, therefore, ALL guns are derived from military versions.
I believe you should have posted this in "Drunken Posting" to get more concise opinions. :rofl:
:shaka:
I was going to say the same thing, but you know you can't win an argument with a drunk! Better to ignore and move on... :wacko:
-
Nah, I prefer to keep the Drunken Posting thread for matters of importance!
-
It is a perfect example of Tom's point. Troll 101. He's getting all 2Aers off the topic by spewing incorrect 'semantics', while at the same time further confusing the sheeple into believing gun people are nuts.
It makes total sense. To me, we can joke about this because to us it sounds totally imbecilic, however, trying to use the semantics against the antis is not helpful to the cause. They (the non-gun public and the antis) don't want to learn about the semantics and they don't care to, therefore, trying to make them understand is not only unfriutful, it just further confuses the public.
And a confused pulic will be fearful, and further call for more government regulation.
Taken from https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=16203.0
-
Quote from: Heavies on Today at 09:14:03 AM
It is a perfect example of Tom's point. Troll 101. He's getting all 2Aers off the topic by spewing incorrect 'semantics', while at the same time further confusing the sheeple into believing gun people are nuts.
It makes total sense. To me, we can joke about this because to us it sounds totally imbecilic, however, trying to use the semantics against the antis is not helpful to the cause. They (the non-gun public and the antis) don't want to learn about the semantics and they don't care to, therefore, trying to make them understand is not only unfriutful, it just further confuses the public.
And a confused pulic will be fearful, and further call for more government regulation.
I disagree. Semantics are important, and using the correct terms is not antithetical to the premise Tom G is advocating. Magazines are not "clips" and "semi-automatic is different from fully automatic. As for a confused public, that is exactly what the "antis" want and we only have to look at the origins of the term "assault weapon" to realize the "war of words" is an intergral component to antigun group's messaging. The term "assault weapons" was coined by Josh Sugarman, then President of Handgun Control Inc., now the Brady Coalition, to purposefully confuse the public about the difference between semi and full-automatic firearms. The stated and desired purpose of that confusion was to make subsequent attempts at gun bans easier. We need to be clear on terms, both for clarity sake and for legislative purposes.
-
In my mind, the AR is an excellent modern sporting rifle. There aren't a lot of firearms that one could buy that has the ability to change calibers depending on the situation. In terms of hunting, this is an excellent selling point if the goal is to hunt multiple types of game during the different times at which it is legal to hunt those types.
-
I disagree. Semantics are important, and using the correct terms is not antithetical to the premise Tom G is advocating. Magazines are not "clips" and "semi-automatic is different from fully automatic. As for a confused public, that is exactly what the "antis" want and we only have to look at the origins of the term "assault weapon" to realize the "war of words" is an intergral component to antigun group's messaging. The term "assault weapons" was coined by Josh Sugarman, then President of Handgun Control Inc., now the Brady Coalition, to purposefully confuse the public about the difference between semi and full-automatic firearms. The stated and desired purpose of that confusion was to make subsequent attempts at gun bans easier. We need to be clear on terms, both for clarity sake and for legislative purposes.
I certainly agree with what you are saying.
What I wanted to point out is that getting into a protracted debate on the semantics is not fruitful. Should suffice to point out the errors and redirect to more pertinent points, such as firearms are used to defend and protect, and to use it otherwise(criminally) is up to the person, not on the inanimate object.
-
In my mind, the AR is an excellent modern sporting rifle. There aren't a lot of firearms that one could buy that has the ability to change calibers depending on the situation. In terms of hunting, this is an excellent selling point if the goal is to hunt multiple types of game during the different times at which it is legal to hunt those types.
I guess you don't need more than a 5 round magazine then if you're just hunting and practicing.
-
oh well if you look at the AR 15 a defferent way heck why not It can make a good back scratcher , my AR is a remote control for my TV when I'm 5 feet away, and you see those 30 round mags when you pile them up they make a good door stopper. Oh I can go fishing with it, its a fishing pole just put a line at the end of it, Oh the barrel makes a good jack for jacking up your car, Hey if you put a hose in the back end you get a good Pressure washer now thats damn good, on the handle in the compartment don't tell anyone I keep it a secret , I keep my tooth brush in it you know those little menehunies they like to take my toothbrush. and when you extend the butt end you get a good paddle for a boat wow AR paddle, as for the 556 bullets well they make nice decoration on a Christmas tree and and the end of the year light it up and you get fire works Happy new year, Hey it you can't get that mango 3 feet away you guest it a mango picker You see AR15 many uses for it, many ways to look at it as a tool. LOL,but hey the government is working on something big like how to use the ar as a tampon it's a big hush hush hey why the heck is this site promoting tampons anyway most of us are guys we don't need tampons the the heck, hey 2Ahawaii you goina advertise birthcontrol too. Gotta leave guys, this tampon ad is getting to me!
-
I guess you don't need more than a 5 round magazine then if you're just hunting and practicing.
Mag capacity is a different topic, this is about the design characteristics that make it effective for a broad range of uses.
-
I disagree. Semantics are important, and using the correct terms is not antithetical to the premise Tom G is advocating.
I just wanted to jump in here and applaud the way you slipped "antithetical" into a point about semantics!!!!
-
Mag capacity is a different topic, this is about the design characteristics that make it effective for a broad range of uses.
It's entirely within the topic; it's just one example.
Once you succumb to the notion that the purpose matters; then you open yourself up to all sorts of limitations on features a la California.
So if you're target shooting, why would you need a collapsible stock? It doesn't save any weight.
Hunting? 10 rounds are plenty.
Flash suppressor? What for? You're 3gunning at night?
Who needs a pistol grip? You're not breaching.
And so on..
I go back to the car example. Does anyone need a 500bhp car with "track features"? No of course not. People buy them because they want one. There is no practical need for one regardless of whether you're going to work or picking up kids. 0-60 in 3 seconds? It's a death machine!
-
.
-
There is no right protected by the Bill of Rights (note: not given, protected, as the Bill of Rights does not grant you any rights) that requires a demonstration of need in order to be exercised. Should there be?
-
I just wanted to jump in here and applaud the way you slipped "antithetical" into a point about semantics!!!!
Just for you buddy :geekdanc:
-
Once you succumb to the notion that the purpose matters; then you open yourself up to all sorts of limitations on features a la California.
<SNIP>
I go back to the car example. Does anyone need a 500bhp car with "track features"? No of course not. People buy them because they want one. There is no practical need for one regardless of whether you're going to work or picking up kids. 0-60 in 3 seconds? It's a death machine!
Woah, woah, woah, woah! I so completely disagree!
My view is that purpose does matter, and we are completely justified in wanting combat features. I strongly feel that the attitude of "pretend it isn't so" is one of the primary reasons why we're in the pickle we're currently in today. You're right to say that we don't need these features for hunting, which is why we should not pretend that hunting is the purpose of these weapons. You're wrong (IMHO, of course!) to say there is no practical need for them. We need to be defending that practical need, not ignoring it, and not pretending it isn't there.
-
There is no right protected by the Bill of Rights (note: not given, protected, as the Bill of Rights does not grant you any rights) that requires a demonstration of need in order to be exercised. Should there be?
Oh, that's such another can of worms!
-
Woah, woah, woah, woah! I so completely disagree!
My view is that purpose does matter, and we are completely justified in wanting combat features. I strongly feel that the attitude of "pretend it isn't so" is one of the primary reasons why we're in the pickle we're currently in today. You're right to say that we don't need these features for hunting, which is why we should not pretend that hunting is the purpose of these weapons. You're wrong (IMHO, of course!) to say there is no practical need for them. We need to be defending that practical need, not ignoring it, and not pretending it isn't there.
Disagree. Need does not matter. I have the right to own a gun. Period.
Need is not the business of the state except to the extent where it serves the public interest (e.g. I do not believe people should be allowed to own personal WMDs or operate munitions factories in suburbs, etc..).
If I want to own 50 AR-15s I can. Does anyone need 50 rifles to defend their home?
No that's totally absurd. You could be in an outright lawless state where you are actively defending your home and owning 50 rifles would probably still be absurd.*
The minute you concede the debate to one of necessity you have lost. Period. Because then it becomes about what you need XYZ for and why.. and blah blah blah.
* Obviously if you have a bunch of people.. I mean a single individual.
-
Disagree. Need does not matter. I have the right to own a gun. Period.
Need is not the business of the state except to the extent where it serves the public interest (e.g. I do not believe people should be allowed to own personal WMDs or operate munitions factories in suburbs, etc..).
If I want to own 50 AR-15s I can. Does anyone need 50 rifles to defend their home?
No that's totally absurd. You could be in an outright lawless state where you are actively defending your home and owning 50 rifles would probably still be absurd.*
The minute you concede the debate to one of necessity you have lost. Period. Because then it becomes about what you need XYZ for and why.. and blah blah blah.
* Obviously if you have a bunch of people.. I mean a single individual.
Lemme chew on this a while.
-
.
-
I'll just offer one thought before I rack out.
When's the last time you heard a mainstream discussion questioning the core need for freedom of speech?
Never.
Sure we place sensible limits on certain speech. I can say untrue things but bear liability - as for any weapon if employed to criminal ends.
The difference is we presume a lawful driver will do the right thing, whereas a lawful gun owner is presumed to shoot up a school.
If you go buy a big hummer, nobody assumes you intend to run people off the road with it "oh that one has assault car features.. Sorry bud", but when you buy a normal 30rd mag you're a nut.
(FWIW, I actually do assume every driver is an idiot trying to run me off the road while texting, but hopefully my point is clear)
-
It's entirely within the topic; it's just one example.
Once you succumb to the notion that the purpose matters; then you open yourself up to all sorts of limitations on features a la California.
So if you're target shooting, why would you need a collapsible stock? It doesn't save any weight.
Hunting? 10 rounds are plenty.
Flash suppressor? What for? You're 3gunning at night?
Who needs a pistol grip? You're not breaching.
And so on..
I go back to the car example. Does anyone need a 500bhp car with "track features"? No of course not. People buy them because they want one. There is no practical need for one regardless of whether you're going to work or picking up kids. 0-60 in 3 seconds? It's a death machine!
Sorry I thought the topic was about designs and operation. The capacity of the magazine makes no difference to its design or operation, it's a box magazine, it goes in, feeds rounds, push the button it comes out regardless of capacity. Not sure about you, but I use my pistol grip for more than just breaching. It's a great support when shooting prone and more ergonomic to boot. Collapsible stock for weight savings? Your right, you won't save much weight, but it's like adjustable seats in a car, one size doesn't fit all. As far as the car analogy, if youre comparing an ar to a sports car. One could just as easily compare it to a sport utility vehicle, seeing as its well suited to many tasks. It appears we agree on rights regarding owning these rifles, but what we may not see eye to eye on is how we choose to educate people of their place in society. I just don't believe the "because it's my right" or "because I want one" excuse will get you very far with people not already on your side.
-
Sorry I thought the topic was about designs and operation. The capacity of the magazine makes no difference to its design or operation, it's a box magazine, it goes in, feeds rounds, push the button it comes out regardless of capacity. Not sure about you, but I use my pistol grip for more than just breaching. It's a great support when shooting prone and more ergonomic to boot. Collapsible stock for weight savings? Your right, you won't save much weight, but it's like adjustable seats in a car, one size doesn't fit all. As far as the car analogy, if youre comparing an ar to a sports car. One could just as easily compare it to a sport utility vehicle, seeing as its well suited to many tasks. It appears we agree on rights regarding owning these rifles, but what we may not see eye to eye on is how we choose to educate people of their place in society. I just don't believe the "because it's my right" or "because I want one" excuse will get you very far with people not already on your side.
I wouldn't tell them it's my right - you're correct that would be a poor play. I'd pick something they owned and ask them why they need it. Of course to persuade someone you must guide them to your position not merely state it.
Again, it's about controlling the narrative. When you respond with a list of needs, you validate their notion that need matters and that need is the basis for your justified usage/possession/etc.
Instead you must illustrate how need is irrelevant.
How you choose to do that varies. Pretty much everything we worry about is a luxury though so you don't have to think hard.
That answer of "because I wanted one" will fly right back at them pretty soon.
If you can get them to the point of understanding how something they may not consider necessary would be something a person would reasonably want.. it's not too difficult to hook in the whole rights thing.. of.. hey not only is it totally reasonable for me to want this thing that you don't think I need - which is pretty much like how I don't think you need to spend $500 on a handbag you want - I actually have this constitution right to own one!
-
I wouldn't tell them it's my right - you're correct that would be a poor play. I'd pick something they owned and ask them why they need it. Of course to persuade someone you must guide them to your position not merely state it.
Again, it's about controlling the narrative. When you respond with a list of needs, you validate their notion that need matters and that need is the basis for your justified usage/possession/etc.
Instead you must illustrate how need is irrelevant.
How you choose to do that varies. Pretty much everything we worry about is a luxury though so you don't have to think hard.
That answer of "because I wanted one" will fly right back at them pretty soon.
If you can get them to the point of understanding how something they may not consider necessary would be something a person would reasonably want.. it's not too difficult to hook in the whole rights thing.. of.. hey not only is it totally reasonable for me to want this thing that you don't think I need - which is pretty much like how I don't think you need to spend $500 on a handbag you want - I actually have this constitution right to own one!
IMO, owning a firearm is not really a luxury item. It could be a need. As in, unless a person is totally fit, trained in hand to hand unarmed combat, disarming a bigger thug of weapons by hand, etc... a firearms is an equalizer, not fashion items, as in your examples. That is why, i believe, the framers included the 2nd Amendment, so that the people are "equal" to their elected rulers, the people can be "equal" to the 300lb thug trying to take your property or your life, and "equal" to the tyrants who would take your rights away from you. Purposefully not a luxury. IMHO, this is why the need argument is nonproductive.
You might say, "why do you need 50 AR15's?" Well, you could argue redundancy.... things break, things jam, things wear out... Why does the DHS need ukuhundredsofthousands of rounds of JHP ammo?
-
BigBlue, you really have got me thinking. Every time I try to formulate a response, it turns ridiculously verbose, which means I haven't gotten to the end of my thought process yet. I'll check back in after Labor Day.
-
IMO, owning a firearm is not really a luxury item. It could be a need. As in, unless a person is totally fit, trained in hand to hand unarmed combat, disarming a bigger thug of weapons by hand, etc... a firearms is an equalizer, not fashion items, as in your examples. That is why, i believe, the framers included the 2nd Amendment, so that the people are "equal" to their elected rulers, the people can be "equal" to the 300lb thug trying to take your property or your life, and "equal" to the tyrants who would take your rights away from you. Purposefully not a luxury. IMHO, this is why the need argument is nonproductive.
You might say, "why do you need 50 AR15's?" Well, you could argue redundancy.... things break, things jam, things wear out... Why does the DHS need ukuhundredsofthousands of rounds of JHP ammo?
I have a right to own these things under the second amendment.
I have a need to preserve that and all other basic rights.
You have a right to question that need, also protected under the same laws that protect the second amendment.
You do NOT have a right to dictate to me what I need or do not need. Case in point: number of rounds in a magazine.
The fact that we have a 10-rd limit on handgun magazines that is both arbitrary and ineffective with regard to improving anyone's safety speaks loudly as to the emotional, illogical, and agenda-driven tactics of the antis. How we as citizens allow these kinds of attacks on our rights is amazing to me. Our society as we knew it is crumbling, and it's the low-information voters who are blindly enabling these lawmakers to further restrict our individual rights and freedoms. From AW Bans to magazine limits to ammunition restrictions banning hollow points, and letting bureaucrats determine when we are "mentally unsafe" so our guns can be confiscated ... the death by a thousand cuts is continuous ...
-
Tom,
It just seems people go on the defensive when you call their farce.
Most of the weapons I've seen purchased by people on this this forum are intended are for combat or pretend/fantasy combat applications; period. If someone is going honestly sit here and say 'yeah... I bought an Ar15 and put all this magpul shit and put a red dot on it for hunting reasons or for target practice', you are full of shit.
Like blue said: the reason you should own stuff is simply because you can. Don't try and his behind the whole 'modern sporting rifle' defense, because no one will buy it anymore.
I realize you qualified your statement with "most", and truth be told, I agree with you and Tom_G on this. But......... I did build this specifically to hunt pigs, just sayin'.
-
.
-
.
-
which is why we should not pretend that hunting is the purpose of these weapons. You're wrong (IMHO, of course!) to say there is no practical need for them. We need to be defending that practical need, not ignoring it, and not pretending it isn't there.
But Tom, the liberals start screeching "Militias!" if you start down that path, They have already got the media propaganda machine revved up to spotlight any hint of "anti government" attitudes among firearms owners.
If you drift away from politically correct approved "hunting and sporting use", what will you discuss with the leftists to explain why you have the firearm you do, set up as you do?
I admit to being a bit to the right of Attila, and not having any sense of nuance for this sort of thing, so please carry on.
-
OP has a good point, but I have not the patience to go down that rabbit hole. Instead when asked what I need that style weapon for, my canned answer is "none of your business". Then if pushed persue the discussion from a more philosophical rights perspective.