using machine guns as a point of leverage against antis in disguise.

Status
Not open for further replies.
""In summation, I think that during a civil discourse with someone who you may think is pro-gun, it would be prudent to touch on their opinion of machine guns."

translated

"In summation, I think that during a civil discourse with someone who you may think is pro-gun, it would be prudent to touch on their opinion of machine guns. If at that point they do not favor the de-regulation of machine guns then you thought wrong and they are indeed not pro gun"

Thus you called my view and thus me anti-gun.

Pretty clear stuff.
 
"Putting words in my mouth. Straw man."

If I am wrong I am wrong please explain what you meant by:

"In summation, I think that during a civil discourse with someone who you may think is pro-gun, it would be prudent to touch on their opinion of machine guns."

Please explain in the context of the original post.

I am waiting to apologize to you if I was wrong.
 
And yes, I believe that when you release a prisoner he should get his guns back. If you can't trust him with a gun (which he can get immediately on the streets) you have no right turning him loose on society.
Click to expand...
Unfortunantly, you can't refuse to release a prisoner once the sentence is done just because the prisoner is dangerous.

Why don't you set those prisoners free? Why are you so anti-freedom?
Click to expand...
Because I believe in common sense laws. Not what the Brady campaign says are common sense laws, laws that actually are common sense.

"Who are you kidding?" Who has ever achieved individual liberty without taking it?
Click to expand...
If you take too much someone might take your's.
But take heed, now your evil, rapid-fire, mass casualty semi-autos are up next on the chopping block, and with good reason I suppose.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. Currently the politicians are all afraid.

Time and time again we've all seen just how much dreadful carnage and mayhem just one unhinged individual with a semi-auto can rapidly inflict.
Click to expand...
It's not too much different with a semi-auto "assault weapon" than a semi-auto hunting rifle. People see we shouldn't ban semi-auto hunting rifles, and then realise that other semi-autos are not that different, and oppose a ban.
I regret to inform you that you that your specious argument that semi-autos are somehow "cool" and relatively benign in comparison to the "uncool" full-auto just won't wash.
Click to expand...
Then they hear that people want machinge guns. "See, we told you, they really do want machine guns. We need to ban assault weapons and machine guns". And now a lot of people see "assault weapons" as "machine guns" and say, "you know what, they can ban ARs, I don't want machine guns"



For example, stolen weapons are a main source of guns for criminals. What if the known pool of stolen weapons is demonstrated to include a miniscule percentage of machine guns?
Click to expand...
Not even commenting on the machine gun issue, I doubt this is the case. They are so expensive that whoever owns one will probably have a good safe and report it stolen.

The second amendment protects the right it doesn't say it will be untaxed.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it's unconstitutional to tax voting and newsprint, so it would also be to tax guns.

By pushing it back to deregulated machine guns, we have that much more freedom as well as political running space
Click to expand...
Or the general populace pushes back and we lose what we have now.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunantly, you can't refuse to release a prisoner once the sentence is done just because the prisoner is dangerous.
Click to expand...
Very, very few prisoners serve their full sentences, or even close to them.


"Putting words in my mouth. Straw man."

If I am wrong I am wrong please explain what you meant by:

"In summation, I think that during a civil discourse with someone who you may think is pro-gun, it would be prudent to touch on their opinion of machine guns."

Please explain in the context of the original post.

I am waiting to apologize to you if I was wrong.
Click to expand...

Note the immediately following context from said original post:

We always talk about how we must be proactive instead of reactive in the quest for gun rights, and right now, assault weapons seem to be the popular battleground. We are defending so-called assault weapons. I think we should be attacking the current mindset on machine guns instead. If the enemies of the 2nd amendment are too busy arguing with us over machine guns, at the very least, they won't have the luxury of squabbling over "just" semiautomatic assault weapons.
Click to expand...

Thus, it is prudent to determine whether a person who you may think is pro-gun, is in favour of, or against, machine gun regulations as a way to broaden their horizons and recruit them to the larger fight for more gun rights. Most people (even self-described pro-gun people) rarely consider machine guns. By bringing it up, you do a service not only for them, but for us all.
 
Very, very few prisoners serve their full sentences, or even close to them.
Click to expand...
And that's bad. However, why do you think they aren't serving their full sentence and aren't sentenced harsh enough? Probably underfunded prison systems and liberal judges or prison workers.

Until we can solve those problems, I'll stand by not letting felons have guns.
 
If military-pattern semi-automatic rifles are a fair litmus test for the pro-gun rights movement, the movement is failing, pathetically.
 
"Thus, it is prudent to determine whether a person who you may think is pro-gun, is in favour of, or against, machine gun regulations as a way to broaden their horizons and recruit them to the larger fight for more gun rights. Most people (even self-described pro-gun people) rarely consider machine guns. By bringing it up, you do a service not only for them, but for us all."

I do see your view but still disagree that trying to pursue the de-regulation of machine gun will have any positive effect on gun rights overall. Trying to explain why we are against a new version of the AWB to a "fence sitter" whom will decide this matter in the long run is logical.

Trying to convince that same person that we need to repeal a decades old set of laws and regulations concerning fully automatic weapons is not. As already pointed out very few crimes (percentage wise) of any kind are committed using fully automatic weapons. The reason for this is simple, they are nowhere near available as their semi auto counterparts. Thus those laws and regulation are working as intended. Trying to logically convince the "fence sitter" otherwise will take away the credibility we have in debating a new version of the AWB. Trying to convince the "fence sitters" that the fully auto laws do not work and need to be abolished with no fact base support behind it will weaken our position on the possible AWB.

Your post rather it intended to or not implied that being in favor of regulation of fully auto weapons systems is somehow being anti-gun. I could not disagree more. It is a slippery slop using that train of thought as where you draw the line at for legally own weapons will just paint you "anti" in the eyes of the guy who thinks he should be able to own "one level up" in his choice of weapon systems.
 
The reason for this is simple, they are nowhere near available as their semi auto counterparts.
Click to expand...

You could mail-order dewatted (bolt removed) machine guns directly to your home in the 50s and 60s (before the '68 GCA). There wasn't a rash of full auto crime then. To you the laws are working as intended. To me the laws are superfluous.


It IS a slippery slope, but gravity is pulling us the other way. I'm not convinced that even a successful campaign to deregulate machine guns would evince any kind of momentum toward more and more deregulation, unless we specifically push for it.
 
"ou could mail-order dewatted (bolt removed) machine guns directly to your home in the 50s and 60s (before the '68 GCA). There wasn't a rash of full auto crime then. To you the laws are working as intended. To me the laws are superfluous.


It IS a slippery slope, but gravity is pulling us the other way. I'm not convinced that even a successful campaign to deregulate machine guns would evince any kind of momentum toward more and more deregulation, unless we specifically push for it."

It's 2009 not 1950 or 1960 using those examples is pointless at best IMO. We have to base our debate with those in favor of a new AWB on the here and now not what was going on 50 years ago.

Simple fact is that fully auto weapons are not present in very many crimes not because those committing those crimes choose not to use them but because they are much more difficult to get than the semi autos.

I am pro-gun but I do believe that certain gun laws are needed and that certain gun laws do prevent crime to a degree. I do not think that we need a revamp of the AWB but at the same time I do not support the de-regulation of the fully auto weapons. I am a supporter of the rights given to us by the founders of this country but also believe that those laws and foundations must sometimes change with the times. The very fact that those founders built ways into those laws and foundations to allow them to be changed supports my view IMO.
 
:Quote:
Simple fact is that fully auto weapons are not present in very many crimes not because those committing those crimes choose not to use them but because they are much more difficult to get than the semi autos.

Prove it."

Oh please.....

Use a little common sense....
 
I agree with General Geoff. The difference is incremental and I would add that if one wants to own a howitzer or rocket launcher then so be it. That said, should one misuse one of these devices then off to the pokey for a long long time for the offender. A crime is mens rea + actus reus (intent and act). To my way of thinking, ownership of a weapon shows neither.
 
What's this "prove it" BS, General Geoff?

The man is actually making a very logical connection. It IS a proven fact that fully automatic weapons aren't used in very many crimes. It's also a proven fact that fully automatic weapons are rare in the United States because newly manufactured ones are not legal to own. (Therefore you have a small supply, resulting in high prices.)

In a world where criminals watch movies and MTV, it would seem that many of them would want "cool" machine guns. But they don't get them and use them.

Do you have a different theory of why that is? :confused:

Because when you start telling people that they have to "prove" their logical connections, which are in fact common sense, you sound like you're being argumentative rather than constructive.

Also, you spent a lot of time in this thread trying to back down from the position that people who are anti-machine-gun are really anti-gun. But look at your thread title. You referred to some class of people as "antis in disguise." What most people seem to have taken away from your post is that you can use the topic of machine gun deregulation to spot an "anti in disguise."

Maybe it's because you said "everyone here will agree that anyone who advocates an AWB or a magazine capacity limit, is anti-gun. But how is that any different from those who would oppose those restrictions, but favour a machine gun ban?"

A fair rephrasing of those sentences would be: "Advocating an AWB equals being anti-gun, but my opinion is that favoring a machine gun ban also equals being anti-gun, because it's not any different."

If you didn't mean it, then say you didn't mean it. But don't try to say you didn't imply it in your post, because you did.

Aaron
 
Well I usually consider myself a pro, but I'm quite okay with the current hoops needed to own a fully automatic weapon. If you want to get a stamp, background, and jump through the rings, great! That level of dedication also says you're probably ready for the responsibility of owning such a tool. This is where I always draw the line in the sand. I'm all for people owning any semi auto, bolt, lever, single shot, or revolver in any caliber but I'm quite happy with the current stance on full autos
 
Last edited:
If military-pattern semi-automatic rifles are a fair litmus test for the pro-gun rights movement, the movement is failing, pathetically.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. They are the standard because they are what's under attack.
 
Last edited:
"If you didn't mean it, then say you didn't mean it. But don't try to say you didn't imply it in your post, because you did."

Well said.
 
Because when you start telling people that they have to "prove" their logical connections, which are in fact common sense, you sound like you're being argumentative rather than constructive.
Click to expand...

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.

Also, you spent a lot of time in this thread trying to back down from the position that people who are anti-machine-gun are really anti-gun. But look at your thread title. You referred to some class of people as "antis in disguise." What most people seem to have taken away from your post is that you can use the topic of machine gun deregulation to spot an "anti in disguise."

Maybe it's because you said "everyone here will agree that anyone who advocates an AWB or a magazine capacity limit, is anti-gun. But how is that any different from those who would oppose those restrictions, but favour a machine gun ban?"

A fair rephrasing of those sentences would be: "Advocating an AWB equals being anti-gun, but my opinion is that favoring a machine gun ban also equals being anti-gun, because it's not any different."

If you didn't mean it, then say you didn't mean it. But don't try to say you didn't imply it in your post, because you did.
Click to expand...

You want to squeeze my opinion out on the matter, fine. You're right, I do think that those against deregulation of machine guns are anti-gun to a degree. As I said several posts down:

"I think they are, just less-so than the usual suspects."


Now don't expect me to entertain any other counter arguments of "well you must be anti-gun because you don't think people should have nuclear weapons," or any such tripe. Those are all straw men. This discussion has to do with small arms, specifically automatic weapons (machine guns). Keep it there, please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Anti Gun Websites?
Replies
15
Views
774
Sig245
S
Y
  • Locked
My pet names for the "Assault Weapon"
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
fal762x51
F
A
  • Locked
An opinion I got published in the local paper
Replies
5
Views
512
ZeBool
Z
R
  • Locked
"Powerful Medicine" to Stop a New Assault Weapon Ban
Replies
18
Views
2K
ArfinGreebly
ArfinGreebly
M
  • Locked
Positive Machine Gun article by New York Times!
Replies
5
Views
646
mortablunt
M
Back
Top