Justices agree on right to own guns

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Actions speak louder than words. If you think those deaths are tragic and still care more for your own position, that speaks to a level of callous disregard for your fellow humans. I can not make you feel differently about it, but I can point it out. I can hope that others, who have not cemented their positions, will ask themselves if that is the type of human they want to be. I can present an alternative approach and support the rational thought process and hard numbers behind that approach and hope to win in the marketplace of ideas.

Not callous disregard, just a "realistic" view that no compromise I can make will change that reality.


I also stated that I don't intend to be a saccrificial animal saccrificing my rights for the psychological comfort of those disassociated with reality, and again, that is exactly what you are asking.


Unless you're prepared to kick in everybodies door SS style, you're never going to be able to provide any true security, just the idea of security.

Quote by: lsbskins1 And this is where others get to pick who's line in the sand is the reasonable one. The difference between us is that you advocate shooting people if more people accept my line than yours. You think of it as a "right to resist tyranny", but really, from my perspective, it is only you insisting that if you lose in the marketplace of ideas, you will use coercion to re-establish the line you like. That is tyranny, not defense against tyranny.

Who is trying to dictate new terms to whom?


The defense rests.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Halofan48 Fear of people with the ability to easily kill you from a distance at anytime doesn't seem to irrational.

Well, live with it, because we've been able to kill each other fro distances since about the time the throwing spear was invented, and if that wasn't the case, you'd have to cower in fear of the dude at the gym whose biceps are the size of your head, there is always some one who can easily kill you.

[Halofan48]

Ya, but u can survive that more easily. Plus the range is less. Rifles can kill you easily from very far away and are a lot more accurate than an arrow or throwing spear.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Yah, and if you eliminate rifles, crossbows will be the next best thing, and you'll have just as much to fear from those.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Not callous disregard, just a "realistic" view that no compromise I can make will change that reality. I also stated that I don't intend to be a saccrificial animal saccrificing my rights for the psychological comfort of those disassociated with reality, and again, that is exactly what you are asking. Unless you're prepared to kick in everybodies door SS style, you're never going to be able to provide any true security, just the idea of security.

It is not realism to insist that no level of death and destruction would cause you to surrender your "right" to own whatever type of weapon you choose. It is not realism to insist that anyone who advocates for restrictions, no matter how reasonable, is an SS style oppressor. You always insist that people get your positions exactly right, but you feel free to exaggerate mine. Let's make this plain. I would allow you to own a shot gun, I would allow you to own a rifle suitable for deer hunting or hunting whatever game you chose to hunt. I would not allow you to own assault rifles or 20 different automatic pistols.

I would severely limit weapons who's real purpose is to maximize human death and destruction. The idea, sir, is not to render you defenseless, it is to make it more likely that you will not be killed while eating at McDonald's by a nutcase with a machine gun. My niece was on a school trip on the grounds of Virginia Tech on that fateful day. She was not a student at Tech, so not in class, and nowhere near the building where the shooting occurred, but that was just a matter of luck.

And argue that if others had been armed, he could have been stopped sooner until you are blue in the face. People were returning fire against Charles Whitman for almost the whole time he was on the tower. It did not stop him. People don't walk around locked and loaded. Trained police officers (and a civilian following their directions) had to stop Whitman, but they did not do it before he killed 14 people and wounded 32 others. Fat lotta good all those heavily armed and practiced gun users walking around Texas did that day. That is proof enough that being armed to the teeth does not make these things less likely to happen. It proves that someone with access to as many guns as he wants and the element of surprise on his side, can kill an unacceptable amount of people before anyone, armed or not, can stop him.

And I fully realise that Whitman's arsenal was made up of guns I would not ban (except the M1). I understand the world can not be rendered harmless. I understand there is a certain level of danger one must accept to retain freedom. But there should be no blank check and that is essentially what you offer.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Who is trying to dictate new terms to whom? The defense rests.

Then the defense is arguing against the right to self government. If that is the sum total of your case, you are a bad legal strategist.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 It is not realism to insist that no level of death and destruction would cause you to surrender your "right" to own whatever type of weapon you choose.

Sure it is, because whatever number of deaths you cite, I'm sure the number of deaths associated with automobiles exceeds that number over time, yet that doesn't change you view of automibiles. You still see those as a useful tool, likely because you use one regularly.


Yet, in truth, it would be far easier to procure, and use an aotumobile to kill somebody maliciously were the only intent to kill. So again, you're logic falls apart.

Quote by: lsbskins1 It is not realism to insist that anyone who advocates for restrictions, no matter how reasonable, is an SS style oppressor.

I didn't, I said one would need to be to "garuntee" anybodies safety. You are just trying to sell the illusion of safety, though you yourself admit you are not intent on banning the guns most often used in the commision of crimes.

Quote by: lsbskins1 You always insist that people get your positions exactly right, but you feel free to exaggerate mine. Let's make this plain. I would allow you to own a shot gun, I would allow you to own a rifle suitable for deer hunting or hunting whatever game you chose to hunt. I would not allow you to own assault rifles or 20 different automatic pistols.

Right, you don't care to remove the tools people use to commit crimes, you just want us to appease your irrational fears. Like I said, you want a society of saccrificial animals.

Quote by: lsbskins1 And I fully realise that Whitman's arsenal was made up of guns I would not ban (except the M1). I understand the world can not be rendered harmless. I understand there is a certain level of danger one must accept to retain freedom. But there should be no blank check and that is essentially what you offer.

That's essentially what was garunteed by the choice of the word "arms".


How would an "armed Militia" arm itself ( which was the understanding ) if the manufacture, sales, and possesion of "arms" is illegal?


You're in denial here, plain, and simple.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Sure it is, because whatever number of deaths you cite, I'm sure the number of deaths associated with automobiles exceeds that number over time, yet that doesn't change you view of automibiles. You still see those as a useful tool, likely because you use one regularly.

This is a point that has been adressed before. We license drivers, we regulate cars to a much greater degree than we do guns, despite the fact that human death is an unfortunate side effect of automobile use and the freakin designed purpose of a gun. Add the fact that, as has been stated and established, per use death rates are considerably lower for automobiles and the economic necessity is far greater. You trot this out all the time, but it is not an effective point on almost every conceivable level.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Yet, in truth, it would be far easier to procure, and use an aotumobile to kill somebody maliciously were the only intent to kill. So again, you're logic falls apart.

Right. That is why wars are fought with Jeeps and Hummers causing the greatest number of combat deaths, 'cause cars are more efficient death dealers than guns.

Quote by: Milton Bradley I didn't, I said one would need to be to "garuntee" anybodies safety. You are just trying to sell the illusion of safety, though you yourself admit you are not intent on banning the guns most often used in the commision of crimes.

Quote me the statistics that say most gun death crimes are committed with hunting rifles.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Right, you don't care to remove the tools people use to commit crimes, you just want us to appease your irrational fears. Like I said, you want a society of saccrificial animals.

See above.

Quote by: Milton Bradley That's essentially what was garunteed by the choice of the word "arms".

Alright, Mr. "Original Intent, I've read all the words of the founders and am intimately familiar with the reasoning of the time", now you are claiming the founders had any idea that we would have the type of weaponry we have today and meant for everyone to have access to assault rifles? Who is living in fantasy land now?

Quote by: Milton Bradley How would an "armed Militia" arm itself ( which was the understanding ) if the manufacture, sales, and possesion of "arms" is illegal?

See above.

Quote by: Milton Bradley You're in denial here, plain, and simple.

You are willing to twist truth and logic until they are their own opposite numbers, plain and simple.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Sure it is, because whatever number of deaths you cite, I'm sure the number of deaths associated with automobiles exceeds that number over time, yet that doesn't change you view of automibiles. You still see those as a useful tool, likely because you use one regularly.

{{SIGH}} Milton simply cannot get beyond this false premise, even when he types the glaring reality of it himself...

"likely because you use one regularly"

'Use regularly' would probably be a dramatic understatement. Regularly as in several times a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Along with 200 million OTHER Americans driving several times a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Given the amount of time we spend on the roads, and given the improved safety features of modern automobiles, the chances of being killed or injured are quite small, while the economic and social value of having speedy, safe and reliable transportation is beyond measure.

So, Milton, how 'regularly' do you use your guns? Speaking for myself, I can count the times in the last 5 years on one hand. I'm sorry if this is an inconvenient truth, but that doesn't make the reality any less valid.

Quote by: Milton Yet, in truth, it would be far easier to procure, and use an aotumobile to kill somebody maliciously were the only intent to kill. So again, you're logic falls apart.

The hell it would, Milton. You are so full of it. First off, acquiring a car would certainly be no easier than acquiring a gun, and probably more expensive, plus I'd have to transfer title, get the registration and get insurance.

But even if I ignored all those things and simply paid a few hundred dollars cash for an old clunker, how do I actually go about intentionally killing someone???? Cars need roads to get anywhere, so my intended target would have to be on or near a road somewhere.

A gun, on the other hand, can be carried anywhere I can walk, and then still kill instantly from a distance beyond that!

With a car you have to actually hit them, and be going very fast when you do. How nimble is a speeding car? I suspect I could dodge one quite easily, and from there simply flee to some spot the car can't go... like behind a tree or a telephone pole.

A gun? Just walk up to your target with a big smile, aim and shoot. Bingo. Or ambush them from some hidden vantage point. Or driving by in that old clunker. As they sit at their desk at work. As they're stopped at a red light. Asleep in their bed. There's no place they can run and hide that you can't follow.

Quote by: Milton Bradley How would an "armed Militia" arm itself ( which was the understanding ) if the manufacture, sales, and possession of "arms" is illegal?

Duh!!! I doubt that it's legal to privately own a Hellfire missile, but the military owns thousands of them which Rockwell International is pleased to produce and sell on contract, just as Colt Arms are happy to profit by selling our military M-16s on contract, without selling them to the public.

And how do countries with strict gun control manage to arm their military?

You're trying too hard, Milton, and ignoring your common sense.

.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Sonart . I'm not necessarily for outlawing anything -- at least not right away -- as much as I'm for simply making gun ownership a privilege and perhaps a bit more difficult. For example, we have to pass a test in order to be licensed to drive a car, and have to register any car we own every year . Why not with firearms?

I agree with this.

And let's use common sense regarding what weapons are available to public purchase. Does anyone really need machine guns or military weapons -- even a stripped down copy -- for anything other than their own self-indulgence?

That is exactly what I was saying. But concealed weapons are just as dangerous if not more, because of their concealability.

Or how many guns... is it unreasonable to put a limit on the number of weapons you can purchase? That's one of the primary methods criminals use to acquire guns... large volume 3rd party purchases, all perfectly legal.

That might be a slipery slope though.

Or that other major loophole, the Gun Show? Given the seriousness of the product, is there any real reason such flea markets of death need to exist, other than as convenient loopholes for getting around gun laws?

100% argeed gun shows contributed to unrestricted sales.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 This is a point that has been adressed before. We license drivers, we regulate cars to a much greater degree than we do guns, despite the fact that human death is an unfortunate side effect of automobile use and the freakin designed purpose of a gun. Add the fact that, as has been stated and established, per use death rates are considerably lower for automobiles and the economic necessity is far greater. You trot this out all the time, but it is not an effective point on almost every conceivable level.

That's a matter of opinion, and as usual, you attempt to marginalize the opposition for not agreeing with your arbitrary decisions.


So, is there really only room for one line of thinking on an issue?

Quote by: lsbskins1 Right. That is why wars are fought with Jeeps and Hummers causing the greatest number of combat deaths, 'cause cars are more efficient death dealers than guns.

Silly attempt at sidetracking.

Quote by: lsbskins1 Quote me the statistics that say most gun death crimes are committed with hunting rifles.

Show me where I allege anything of the sort?

Quote by: lsbskins1 Alright, Mr. "Original Intent, I've read all the words of the founders and am intimately familiar with the reasoning of the time", now you are claiming the founders had any idea that we would have the type of weaponry we have today and meant for everyone to have access to assault rifles? Who is living in fantasy land now?

I contend you are still living in the Fantasy World. After all, it is still you trying to dictate new terms, therefore it is you who is not content with the reality which surrounds you.

Quote by: lsbskins1 You are willing to twist truth and logic until they are their own opposite numbers, plain and simple.

Sorry, but I fail to see any "twisting" of the logic from my end, but I do notice an absence of answers to my questions, as usual.


Try answering this one...

How would an "armed Militia" arm itself ( which was the understanding ) if the manufacture, sales, and possesion of "arms" is illegal?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart So, Milton, how 'regularly' do you use your guns? Speaking for myself, I can count the times in the last 5 years on one hand. I'm sorry if this is an inconvenient truth, but that doesn't make the reality any less valid.

I don't even own a gun, never have. I haven't been shooting in many years, probably in the order of fifteen years or so.


I know you're fond of portraying me as a Rambo like individual with gun crazed mentality, but that's just a chariciture manufactured by you in your attempts to demonize me for the readers.

Quote by: Sonart The hell it would, Milton. You are so full of it. First off, acquiring a car would certainly be no easier than acquiring a gun, and probably more expensive, plus I'd have to transfer title, get the registration and get insurance.

I can go out, and steal, and hotwire a car in minutes, if my only desire was to procure a weapon capable of killing somebody.


The irony, of course, is that cars are left out on the street where anybody can get them, and they are more than capable of killing is vast numbers over short periods of time. All hinging on the intent of the user, just like a gun.

Quote by: Sonart But even if I ignored all those things and simply paid a few hundred dollars cash for an old clunker, how do I actually go about intentionally killing someone???? Cars need roads to get anywhere, so my intended target would have to be on or near a road somewhere.

Nonsense, I bet I can drive right into your house and kill you with the car.


Need an illustration?

Quote by: Sonart A gun, on the other hand, can be carried anywhere I can walk, and then still kill instantly from a distance beyond that!

The car can be driven almost anywhere, and can be turned from a tool into a weapon with a simple change of intent, just like a gun.

Quote by: Sonart With a car you have to actually hit them, and be going very fast when you do.

Not really, but I will admit it has it's limitations as a weapon, but the intent of focusing here is to illustrate the intent of the user, because that's what really turns a tool into a weapon.

Quote by: Sonart And how do countries with strict gun control manage to arm their military?

Well, I don't know all the laws in other countries, but I want you to explain the inconsistency in your argument, not redirect the issue whenever the onus is on you to answer a simple question.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton know you're fond of portraying me as a Rambo like individual with gun crazed mentality, but that's just a chariciture manufactured by you in your attempts to demonize me for the readers.

Where have I done that? Example please.

Quote by: Milton I can go out, and steal, and hotwire a car in minutes, if my only desire was to procure a weapon capable of killing somebody.

Which pretty much avoids my point, unless your intent is to mindlessly go out and kill whoever happens to get in your way before you get stopped. And a gun would still be more efficient.

Quote by: Milton Nonsense, I bet I can drive right into your house and kill you with the car.

And I'll bet you can't. You'll never get up the steps to the front porch.

.

[Gods_Mercenary]

A car would go through your front porch, unless;ess you live in a concrete house, so the steps wouldn't matter much.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Where have I done that? Example please.

Oh please. I don't care to go searching for the evidence, but please don't tell me that you don't think you have a propensity to exaggerate to make your point.

Quote by: Sonart Which pretty much avoids my point, unless your intent is to mindlessly go out and kill whoever happens to get in your way before you get stopped. And a gun would still be more efficient.

Not the point.


The point is the ability to kill with ease, and the intent of the user.

Quote by: Sonart And I'll bet you can't. You'll never get up the steps to the front porch.

OK, well, around here, it would be easily achieved. Very easily achieved.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Oh please. I don't care to go searching for the evidence, but please don't tell me that you don't think you have a propensity to exaggerate to make your point.

Milton, there are definitely people on this board who I might characterize as gun-addled Rambo wannabes. You, Osborn, Morgan and Patrick are definitely not among them. You guys are addled more by extreme Libertarian ideology and pathological fear of government, not love of firearms..... although y'all do seem to harbor a certain joyful fantasy about using firearms against the government.

Quote by: Milton Bradley The point is the ability to kill with ease, and the intent of the user.

Well, Milton, if the headlines ever start filling up with crazed students and postal workers driving their cars through crowds, because gun control made it impossible to fulfill their gun-lusting vengeance fantasies with firearms, I'll take your warnings under advisement. But if given the choice -- give up your firearms or give up your automobiles -- I have a pretty good idea which the vast majority of folks would choose.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary A car would go through your front porch, unless;ess you live in a concrete house, so the steps wouldn't matter much.

Nah, I seriously doubt it. I've seen what a car can do to a building and I'm sure many homes are vulnerable.

But unless you're in a tracked vehicle, not mine. Trust me. This isn't my house, but the concept is the same, and the sides and back are protected.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Milton, there are definitely people on this board who I might characterize as gun-addled Rambo wannabes. You, Osborn, Morgan and Patrick are definitely not among them.

I'm going to attempt to hold you to this from now on.

Quote by: Sonart You guys are addled more by extreme Libertarian ideology and pathological fear of government, not love of firearms.....

Hehehe, addled, that's priceless.

Quote by: Sonart although y'all do seem to harbor a certain joyful fantasy about using firearms against the government.

No, just reserving the right.


It's only obvious what our choice will be becuase you people push so hard, so often, and attempt to take so much from the innocent.

Quote by: Sonart Well, Milton, if the headlines ever start filling up with crazed students and postal workers driving their cars through crowds, because gun control made it impossible to fulfill their gun-lusting vengeance fantasies with firearms, I'll take your warnings under advisement. But if given the choice -- give up your firearms or give up your automobiles -- I have a pretty good idea which the vast majority of folks would choose.

Again, here in the very post where you claim to see us not as gun nuts, but philosophical oppenents, you go right back to associating the desire for gun ownership to unstable behavior.


You, sir, are demonizing people unfairly.

Quote by: Sonart Nah, I seriously doubt it. I've seen what a car can do to a building and I'm sure many homes are vulnerable. But unless you're in a tracked vehicle, not mine. Trust me. This isn't my house, but the concept is the same, and the sides and back are protected.

Well I'm glad you are afforded that protection. Here in farm country that's not the case. You could probably ram my house at a very high speed, and find yourself right in the living room ala Freebie, and the Bean.


The point remians, the tool requires the intent of the user to become "dangerous".


I know you will acknowledge this, but dammit man, account for it, because all you're doing now is a good rendition of Bill Clinton waltzing around the point of contention.

[lsbskins1]

Milton -
What about if you intended "car through the house" victim lives in an apartment building, on say, the 10th floor? Still think it would be easier to drive into their living room and kill them?

But this is really silly. It's like saying because you can cut someones leg off with a pane of glass, it would be a more effective tool for amputation than the surgical tools designed for the purpose. Intent is not everything when it comes to efficiency and your point is really rediculous.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Milton - What about if you intended "car through the house" victim lives in an apartment building, on say, the 10th floor?

Then I'd just have to wait for them to come outside, or perhaps opt to attempt to force my way in, and push them out of the window. If my goal is to kill, I'll kill, or try my very best.

Quote by: lsbskins1 Still think it would be easier to drive into their living room and kill them?

No, but like in any other example, the car, the gun, or the window all require the "criminal intent" of the user.


Illustrating why it is silly to attempt to ban guns in an attempt to prevent criminal behavior. Those inclined towards criminal behavior will just find another way to achieve their ends. That's what humans do.

Quote by: lsbskins1 But this is really silly. It's like saying because you can cut someones leg off with a pane of glass, it would be a more effective tool for amputation than the surgical tools designed for the purpose. Intent is not everyt