using machine guns as a point of leverage against antis in disguise.
- Thread starter General Geoff
- Start date
- Status
"You are arguing that machine guns SHOULD be rare, in order to keep the supply to criminals down. That's the most ludicrous statement I've ever heard coming from a supposed 2nd amendment advocate. Criminal trends have no bearing on rights. I could care less if criminals do or don't have easy access to machine guns. I want the law abiding to have easy access to them."
Of course criminal trends have bearings on rights. If not then I should be able to freely and fully explore the White House or any military bases since I in fact helped pay for them and their upkeep.
Again use a little common sense.
Of course criminal trends have bearings on rights. If not then I should be able to freely and fully explore the White House or any military bases since I in fact helped pay for them and their upkeep.
Again use a little common sense.
This thread has gotten pointless.
Geoff, you did appear to say people who don't want to change machine gun laws are "antis in disguise." No big deal, but that does seem like what you said.
Past that, what's the point? Plus, you could have also easily said "Try to persuade your fellow pro-gunners that machine guns should be legal for all to buy." It would have been less divisive.
I really don't see the point here.
Geoff, you did appear to say people who don't want to change machine gun laws are "antis in disguise." No big deal, but that does seem like what you said.
Past that, what's the point? Plus, you could have also easily said "Try to persuade your fellow pro-gunners that machine guns should be legal for all to buy." It would have been less divisive.
I really don't see the point here.
Aaron Baker
Member
So let's sum up this thread a bit...
You got really mad when people accused you of calling people who were anti-machine-gun-deregulation anti-gunners. You kept telling people to re-read your original post and that they were putting words in your mouth. Then you finally admit that you did really mean that all along.
And in the same post, you say I'm arguing that machine guns should be rare in order to keep crime down. I NEVER said that. I specifically said I support machine gun deregulation. But I also said that you were wrong if you thought they weren't more dangerous than other guns, because they clearly are when in the wrong hands. And I also argued that it was logical to say that criminals don't use them in crimes as often because they are less common and harder to find.
But I could tell early on in this thread that it wasn't worth arguing with you. I still don't know why I am. I mean for heaven's sake, you trotted out the tired old "we don't live in a democracy argument." Yes, we live in a Republic, and yes, we don't have a pure majoritarian democractic system. But we still have a democracy. In this Republic, we democratically elect our representatives, who rule on our behalf. Of course, since our representatives always want to get re-elected, they very much rely on public opinion polls. Which means that if 51% of people agree on something, you're much more likely to see the representatives voting for it, so that they don't lose votes.
For the record, I think it's okay to make people jump through hoops in order to buy certain types of weapons. I don't think that these should be purely monetary hoops, because having money does not make you responsible. New manufacture of machine guns should be allowed. Then the price barrier would drop. But I don't mind the idea of extra background checks and extra (reasonably low) tax fees to keep people responsible.
I personally want to own any type of small arm that I can think of. I want rifles with short barrels and machine guns and suppressors. And I don't want to pay $200 and experience hassles going from one state to another.
But I am a human being, and so I'm sympathetic to victims of violent crime. How could I justify saying that it's worth letting me have easier access to a range toy if that means some mother's child is going to be gunned down in the street? Innocent people die because of criminals, and if more innocent people die, then that has to be taken into consideration if I'm going to be a responsible gun owner advocating for deregulation.
We can argue all day long about what causes crime, but since criminals are a fact of life, we have to take that into consideration before we make it easier for them to get more dangerous weapons. If you want to really address the root causes of crime, then let's do that. And decades down the road, when our crime rate is close to 0%, then who will care if you want to own a machine gun?
But when it comes down to it, if we lived in a perfect world, no one would need guns, and therefore those of us who are attracted to guns as a hobby probably wouldn't be as interested in guns either. Once there's no crime or war, you don't really need guns. But as long as there IS crime and war, then you have to be careful who you're arming. Because if you're not, then you're knowingly making it easier for some mother's child to die as a result of gun crime. And if you don't care about that, you're a pretty heartless human being.
In summary: I want fully automatic machine guns too, but the answers aren't always simple, and just because other people are content with the guns they have doesn't make them "anti-gun" or even "antis in disguise." There's room for other opinions in the gun world.
Aaron
(PS: After all, our little world has room for both the Glock fanboys and the 1911 fanboys.)
You got really mad when people accused you of calling people who were anti-machine-gun-deregulation anti-gunners. You kept telling people to re-read your original post and that they were putting words in your mouth. Then you finally admit that you did really mean that all along.
And in the same post, you say I'm arguing that machine guns should be rare in order to keep crime down. I NEVER said that. I specifically said I support machine gun deregulation. But I also said that you were wrong if you thought they weren't more dangerous than other guns, because they clearly are when in the wrong hands. And I also argued that it was logical to say that criminals don't use them in crimes as often because they are less common and harder to find.
But I could tell early on in this thread that it wasn't worth arguing with you. I still don't know why I am. I mean for heaven's sake, you trotted out the tired old "we don't live in a democracy argument." Yes, we live in a Republic, and yes, we don't have a pure majoritarian democractic system. But we still have a democracy. In this Republic, we democratically elect our representatives, who rule on our behalf. Of course, since our representatives always want to get re-elected, they very much rely on public opinion polls. Which means that if 51% of people agree on something, you're much more likely to see the representatives voting for it, so that they don't lose votes.
For the record, I think it's okay to make people jump through hoops in order to buy certain types of weapons. I don't think that these should be purely monetary hoops, because having money does not make you responsible. New manufacture of machine guns should be allowed. Then the price barrier would drop. But I don't mind the idea of extra background checks and extra (reasonably low) tax fees to keep people responsible.
I personally want to own any type of small arm that I can think of. I want rifles with short barrels and machine guns and suppressors. And I don't want to pay $200 and experience hassles going from one state to another.
But I am a human being, and so I'm sympathetic to victims of violent crime. How could I justify saying that it's worth letting me have easier access to a range toy if that means some mother's child is going to be gunned down in the street? Innocent people die because of criminals, and if more innocent people die, then that has to be taken into consideration if I'm going to be a responsible gun owner advocating for deregulation.
We can argue all day long about what causes crime, but since criminals are a fact of life, we have to take that into consideration before we make it easier for them to get more dangerous weapons. If you want to really address the root causes of crime, then let's do that. And decades down the road, when our crime rate is close to 0%, then who will care if you want to own a machine gun?
But when it comes down to it, if we lived in a perfect world, no one would need guns, and therefore those of us who are attracted to guns as a hobby probably wouldn't be as interested in guns either. Once there's no crime or war, you don't really need guns. But as long as there IS crime and war, then you have to be careful who you're arming. Because if you're not, then you're knowingly making it easier for some mother's child to die as a result of gun crime. And if you don't care about that, you're a pretty heartless human being.
In summary: I want fully automatic machine guns too, but the answers aren't always simple, and just because other people are content with the guns they have doesn't make them "anti-gun" or even "antis in disguise." There's room for other opinions in the gun world.
Aaron
(PS: After all, our little world has room for both the Glock fanboys and the 1911 fanboys.)
OP
OP
General Geoff
Member
I'm knowingly making it easier to defend that child's life. No machine gun has ever killed a kid of its own volition. It boils down to the fact that law abiding citizens far outweigh criminals. Open up the supply to machine guns, the good side will have more of them than the bad side.
I don't think advocates of easy-access machine guns will ever admit a connection between the low numbers of machine guns in present circulation and their low amount of use in crime.
To admit this connection would be to concede that a gun-control measure actually worked (gasp!). Heck, you'd have to admit that law-abiding citizens did get their hands on automatic weapons, whereas outlaws largely did not.
And this is not allowed to be true.
To admit this connection would be to concede that a gun-control measure actually worked (gasp!). Heck, you'd have to admit that law-abiding citizens did get their hands on automatic weapons, whereas outlaws largely did not.
And this is not allowed to be true.
JImbothefiveth
Member
Not all gun control is bad. Just bad gun control. Of course, people will disagree on whether machine gun control is bad or not, and I'm staying out of that argument.
Not on legal machine guns anyway. I'd still bet there is some illegal machine gun crime.
The 2 or 3 posts above JImbothefiveth's are basically overlooking the fact that machine guns offer less advantage for criminals looking to overpower unarmed or unsuspecting victims than they offer advantage for a defender taking on multiple opponents, or opponents who rely on some other potential disparity in force.
When it comes to intimidating, killing, or maiming, there are a whole range of weapons and methods available to criminals. Some are legally available and others aren't. When we're talking about viable defense for the honest person, the options narrow considerably because the weapon must be effective within a shorter amount of time. This is the fallacy behind most gun control, and the reason gun control hinders honest people's efforts at self-defense more than it hinders crime.
When it comes to intimidating, killing, or maiming, there are a whole range of weapons and methods available to criminals. Some are legally available and others aren't. When we're talking about viable defense for the honest person, the options narrow considerably because the weapon must be effective within a shorter amount of time. This is the fallacy behind most gun control, and the reason gun control hinders honest people's efforts at self-defense more than it hinders crime.
makarovnik
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,678
I agree that we should be able to have machineguns but I'm not too sure about the no background check part.
I think I should be able to have one but I don't believe that everyone should be able to have one (or many).
I personally wouldn't trust several of my redneck, drug dealing, racist, wife beating, alcoholic neighbors with one.
Also, the 2nd amendment isn't about protecting hunting rights. It's really about protecting our rights to take another human life if things get out of hand.
I think I should be able to have one but I don't believe that everyone should be able to have one (or many).
I personally wouldn't trust several of my redneck, drug dealing, racist, wife beating, alcoholic neighbors with one.
Also, the 2nd amendment isn't about protecting hunting rights. It's really about protecting our rights to take another human life if things get out of hand.
Jefferson Herb
Member
Gun restrictions - anti gun
It's interesting to see so many opinions.I got into a discussion with My Father during the clinton era.He said that the old west style guns are Heritage guns and will never be banned.
Be it Match lock, Wheel lock,Flint lock,cap lock or modern;the owner is responsible for the rounds fired from said firearm.If the process continues and the semis are banned,then will follow with the precission rifles that a good shooter can use to a half mile or so.I don't care if someone has an uzi,as long as I can keep my distance and pick up a .338.
Seriously though we as citizens have failed terribly to keep the self-reliance and our freedoms intact.The vets of yore must really wonder about our path.Most of us feel that the oath to protect the Constitution of the United States has no expiration date.Sometimes I ask myself,The Country is worth it but are the people? We The People , have let our Government drop the security of our borders and now we have TB and other diseases that were once wiped out,or at least curable.
The govt has been given far too much power and now we have to pay the price.Dad used to say let leo's knock down the door on all the drug houses.Great,what if they get the wrong house? Also once you allow this you set new ground rules for search and seizure.
I'm hoping the State of Jefferson can become a reality,but like many others,will probably move out of Kalifornicate in about five years.
It's interesting to see so many opinions.I got into a discussion with My Father during the clinton era.He said that the old west style guns are Heritage guns and will never be banned.
Be it Match lock, Wheel lock,Flint lock,cap lock or modern;the owner is responsible for the rounds fired from said firearm.If the process continues and the semis are banned,then will follow with the precission rifles that a good shooter can use to a half mile or so.I don't care if someone has an uzi,as long as I can keep my distance and pick up a .338.
Seriously though we as citizens have failed terribly to keep the self-reliance and our freedoms intact.The vets of yore must really wonder about our path.Most of us feel that the oath to protect the Constitution of the United States has no expiration date.Sometimes I ask myself,The Country is worth it but are the people? We The People , have let our Government drop the security of our borders and now we have TB and other diseases that were once wiped out,or at least curable.
The govt has been given far too much power and now we have to pay the price.Dad used to say let leo's knock down the door on all the drug houses.Great,what if they get the wrong house? Also once you allow this you set new ground rules for search and seizure.
I'm hoping the State of Jefferson can become a reality,but like many others,will probably move out of Kalifornicate in about five years.
- Status
Similar threads
