All-purpose gun legislation thread

[John_Many_Jars]

Yo, I TOLD them Jews they shoulda gone in strapped!

[ineffablebob]

You think a natural rights defense published by a mainstream media organization is obvious?

I could have been less snarky, but then what’s the point of Internet forum posting? Especially this forum. And yes, it seems pretty obvious to me when a guy associated with Fox posts a defense for firearm ownership via the Washington Times.

[Telefrog]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/10/unhinged-tactical-response-ceo-threatens-to-start-killing-people-over-obamas-gun-control/

Tactical Response CEO loses it.

“Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control,” Yeager explained in his video message. “Fuck that.”

“I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.”

The CEO concluded: “I’m not fucking putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”

[Stepsongrapes]

an intelligent libertarian writer like Judge Napolitano

I’m sorry, you must not have read the quoted language. He argued that we all need “the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us”.

Cruise missiles. Tanks. ICBMs. “Intellegient” has left the house.

[Houngan]

I’m sorry, you must not have read the quoted language. He argued that we all need “the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us”.

Cruise missiles. Tanks. ICBMs. “Intellegient” has left the house.

This argument comes up every time, but it really doesn’t make any sense unless you’re suggesting that the current government would use such technology against its own people.

[Lynch]

The right to bear arms is not a ‘natural right’. What a fucking load of ilogical bullshit.

[DarthMasta]

This argument comes up every time, but it really doesn’t make any sense unless you’re suggesting that the current government would use such technology against its own people.

That’s the point, isn’t it? Or do the people want guns to protect against the government’s use of strongly worded letters?

[ineffablebob]

This argument comes up every time, but it really doesn’t make any sense unless you’re suggesting that the current government would use such technology against its own people.

I would argue that it doesn’t matter what the current government would do. The whole natural-right argument for having arms is that you need to be able to defend yourself against tyranny. Thus, no matter how nice the current government is, you need to be able to effectively counter all the weapons it has, since it might turn tyrannical some day. You can’t just say you’d get the weapons later when the government is showing signs of tyranny, since a more tyrannical government would impose stricter restrictions. You need all the weapons now.

Total cow-pie material, of course. But logical, if you buy the natural-right argument to begin with.

[Gav]

This argument comes up every time, but it really doesn’t make any sense unless you’re suggesting that the current government would use such technology against its own people.

If you’re going to link the 2nd amendment to the Warsaw Ghetto, then you’re not really talking about the current government; you’re talking about a government that would roll through a neighborhood with tanks.

If the point of the second amendment is to fight effectively against a government like that, then why do you need handguns or a CCW law? You should be giving every able-bodied person a tank, a gas mask, and a rocket launcher or two. Do you seriously think that the Warsaw Ghetto would’ve been able to hold off the German army if they’d only had a few Saturday Night specials?

[Houngan]

That’s the point, isn’t it? Or do the people want guns to protect against the government’s use of strongly worded letters?

I would argue that it doesn’t matter what the current government would do. The whole natural-right argument for having arms is that you need to be able to defend yourself against tyranny. Thus, no matter how nice the current government is, you need to be able to effectively counter all the weapons it has, since it might turn tyrannical some day. You can’t just say you’d get the weapons later when the government is showing signs of tyranny, since a more tyrannical government would impose stricter restrictions. You need all the weapons now.

Total cow-pie material, of course. But logical, if you buy the natural-right argument to begin with.

I don’t necessarily buy the natural right argument, those fall under a “life, liberty, pursuit of happiness” category for me. It’s a constitutional right, I do believe that.

As to the argument that we need everything, I’ve only ever heard it from the anti-gun crowd, literally no one I’ve ever met in my near-decade of pro shooting has ever expressed a desire for an explosive of any type, much less the reducto ad absurdum of tanks and ICBMs. What’s the scenario where you think the government would use such things against a populace?

[Houngan]

If you’re going to link . . .

I did not, and would not, thanks.

[Gav]

You think a natural rights defense published by a mainstream media organization is obvious?

I get that P&R is an echo chamber where every differing viewpoint is fringe crazy that deserves the rhetoric of ridicule. But you might consider noting the difference between Fox & Friends and an intelligent libertarian writer like Judge Napolitano, and between Godwin’s Law trolls and a factual analysis of modern history.

Are you saying that “If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.” is a serious counter-factual?

If the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto had the firepower and ammunition to blitz London to smithereens, the firepower and ammunition to annex France, the firepower and ammunition to attack Russia, then they’d have been their own country.

You don’t have to agree. But like tooth decay, intellectual decay can affect anyone. Be careful you don’t eat too much sugar.

[Stepsongrapes]

As to the argument that we need everything, I’ve only ever heard it from the anti-gun crowd, literally no one I’ve ever met in my near-decade of pro shooting has ever expressed a desire for an explosive of any type, much less the reducto ad absurdum of tanks and ICBMs. What’s the scenario where you think the government would use such things against a populace?

As with Tim, did you read the Napolitano quote?

The Polish needed the right to bear arms to stop the invading Germans; specifically, the Polish needed “the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon [the Polish]”.

That isn’t, right there, the argument being articulated by someone other than the anti-gun crowd?

My point is this: are you standing behind the old “right to bear arms” to defend against government tyranny? Is that a rational and strong enough basis to support gun possession, today?

I understand, and somewhat agree with, the the natural right argument applied to self-defense against non-government threats (e.g., animals, your fellow man). Certainly, our self-defense laws are exactly a recognition of that principle. That said, I think every gun advocate who still stands behind guns as a defense against tyrannous government is either sorely over-estimating the value of small arms in that scenario or they’re demanding more than a right to small arms (explosives, at a minimum).

[Gav]

I did not, and would not, thanks.

The article that StepsOnGrapes was replying to did. If you’re going to argue with someone who’s replying to an article, it’s probably worth reading the original material.

If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

If you don’t think it’s true, why are you defending it?

[Lynch]

What’s the scenario where you think the government would use such things against a populace?

Against what do people need to protect again then? With all their rifles and guns? Terrists?

[ineffablebob]

I don’t necessarily buy the natural right argument, those fall under a “life, liberty, pursuit of happiness” category for me. It’s a constitutional right, I do believe that.

As to the argument that we need everything, I’ve only ever heard it from the anti-gun crowd, literally no one I’ve ever met in my near-decade of pro shooting has ever expressed a desire for an explosive of any type, much less the reducto ad absurdum of tanks and ICBMs. What’s the scenario where you think the government would use such things against a populace?

If you’re not arguing from natural right, then the question of needing the big ordnance is a non-issue. So we can stop arguing that point.

When the starting point is constitutional right, then gun ownership becomes subject to the same “your right to swing your fist ends at my face” restriction as other constitutional rights. I haven’t heard anyone calling for a complete ban on all weapons, so the question is at what point does your right to own a gun become a unacceptable risk of injury to the rest of society? My opinion is that high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons is a fine place to draw that line.

[Houngan]

As with Tim, did you read the Napolitano quote?

The Polish needed the right to bear arms to stop the invading Germans; specifically, the Polish needed “the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon [the Polish]”.

That isn’t, right there, the argument being articulated by someone other than the anti-gun crowd?

Sure, and it applied to a population that was already ghettoized, disarmed, had been earmarked for extermination, and had been deported down to a tenth of the original population. If you’re proposing that we could reach that point then yes, I suppose a tank would come in handy. I just don’t think any sort of scenario imaginable in the U.S. would get there, and thus simple rifles are sufficient to fulfill the “Defense against tyranny” idea.

What I don’t understand is why the anti-gun crowd likes to go to nukes and bombers; that’s a pretty crazy idea of how bad things could get considering our current government. That’s what I’m asking, if your argument is that the idea of resistance to a government can only be effective with those things, then you are scared the government will use those things. You are, as best I can determine, the only one saying that.

[Houngan]

If you’re not arguing from natural right, then the question of needing the big ordnance is a non-issue. So we can stop arguing that point.

When the starting point is constitutional right, then gun ownership becomes subject to the same “your right to swing your fist ends at my face” restriction as other constitutional rights. I haven’t heard anyone calling for a complete ban on all weapons, so the question is at what point does your right to own a gun become a unacceptable risk of injury to the rest of society? My opinion is that high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons is a fine place to draw that line.

But why? We’ve gone over this, the primary guns used in murder are tiny pocket pistols holding five or six rounds each, or a basic shotgun. Why would you draw the line around Lamborghinis when it’s Kias that are causing the problem? What are you going to do when there are no more Lamborghinis but the problem remains?

[Scuzz]

Americans were so traumatized by their two wars with the British Empire that we feel the need to be ready for anything. I blame the British.

[TimJames]

To put this to bed, we need a tactical analysis of the situation, preferably written by a reputable left-wing professor. Until then, we’ll have to take a shot (or stab if you prefer) at it ourselves.

Tanks are for taking territory. Infantry is for holding it. To secretly round up Jews, you can’t nuke them. You have to go door to door. If Jews knew they’d be sent to gas chambers, they might have decided to shoot first. Maybe a few more survive, or at least take a few Nazis with them.

I almost forgot about JPFO. Maybe they have more on this. I can’t check at work. Someone look around for me.