NobleTeam360 said:
No, I think people should be able to own whatever weapons they want for self defense. What I find ideal for self defence may differ with what someone else thinks. |
If I find long range, high power snipers, coupled with cluster bombs as my ideal self defence, should I be able to own that because it fits me best?
beeje13 said:
If Guns were outlawed across the U.S tomorrow, you still have maybe millions of guns in circulation that won't go away quickly or easily. |
By last estimates, it's over 300 million, with ~47% of the US Populace owning at least one (and clearly many with multiple).
sundin13 said:
First of all, I was quite obviously speaking about civilian use. Second, when speaking about benefits and costs, I was saying that their increased technical capabilities do not produce any benefits in legal, civilian use. Both of these things were explained in more detail in my other posts. Feel free to read them if you want to see my full explanation
Crimes are often commited by people who were not a criminal before that point in time. I don't know about you, but if I was planning on commiting a crime, I would have no idea how to locate weapons on the black market. Also of note, due to supply and demand curves, prices of illegal weapons would likely increase quite drastically over the black market, making it even more difficult to obtain illegal weapons. |
", but you must lack all capacity for logic if you somehow interpreted those statements that way."
its the result of you being needlessly verbose in an attempt to make a point that doesn't really make much sense
the rifles are not as you say only beneficial wih regards to criminal activity... the reailty is that they are more effective at killing that is all that needs to be said
now, what would have to be discussed is can circumstances arise where a citizen would need a weapon that has that level of effectiveness?
i would say yes they can
"I was quite obviously speaking about civilian use."
therefore you believe that the government should have special rights that are not shared with citizens which is how dictatorships start
mornelithe said:
Straw man. A tyrranical US Government would ignore the rules of engagement that our forces abroad are held by. If we didn't care about collateral damage, the war would've been over in a few days. The US has every ability to render the entire middle east to a glass surface, nevermind chemical or biological agents. |
Your making assumptions having guns is necessary for our own safety period. The Goverment has lied to us this is a fact, the Goverment has tried to setup false flag events to trick us into going to war this is a fact. The more rules the Goverment breaks the harder time they will have convincing the soldiers to side with them and not the civivlians. On top of that even if they do go all out we're on their land so they can't just nuke the whole thing. Not to mention if they kill everyone who will be left for them to control? No one and that's not what they want. Without guns it'll be much much easier to gather us up in concentration camps or something like that without having to kill us. With guns it's almost impossible for them to do that without having lots of soldiers die.
At the end of the day no empire in the world has survived. They've all gone under and been destroyed. So history shows there is a good chance that will happen to America one day. Do you want to be armed when that day comes or not? Let me just add that I do not own a gun.
sc94597 said:
I am still confused on this line of thinking people have. If there is no legitimate reason to purchase these weapons, why do people purchase these weapons? Why not purchase two handguns or a really nice handgun instead? Obviously such people who spend $700-1200 on such a weapon want that weapon for a legitimate reason. Why is self-defense any more legitimate than recreational use (at a range?) Why is self-defense in the context of this environment any more legitimate than self-defense in some future context? Whether something is legitimate is solely the decision of the person buying, with the exception of when they affect the rights of others. Purchasing an AR-15 does not affect the rights of others, therefore any legitimacy comes from the purchasers idea of how they benefit. |
"Handguns are too boring for me, so I bought an AR 15 instead" 
Self defense is a more legitimate reason to use guns than recreational use is, for the same reason that it's a legitimate reason to use morphine if a pasient is in serious pain, but it's not a legitimate reason to use morphine if it's just to get high. It's not a right to have fun, but you have the right to defend yourself.
sc94597 said:
I am still confused on this line of thinking people have. If there is no legitimate reason to purchase these weapons, why do people purchase these weapons? Why not purchase two handguns or a really nice handgun instead? Obviously such people who spend $700-1200 on such a weapon want that weapon for a legitimate reason. Why is self-defense any more legitimate than recreational use (at a range?) Why is self-defense in the context of this environment any more legitimate than self-defense in some future context? Whether something is legitimate is solely the decision of the person buying, with the exception of when they affect the rights of others. Purchasing an AR-15 does not affect the rights of others, therefore any legitimacy comes from the purchasers idea of how they benefit. |
i think it comes from an acknowledgement of the flaws of other people in society that can cause harm to yourself and as a result the appeal to a higher power to place regulations in place that restrict the freedom of others and raise the level of safety
and that is an admirable cause but it is flawed imo for several reasons : the higher power or governement in this place is not infallible and above all does not have your best interests in mind, you relinquish your responsibilities with regards to taking safety measures etc
mornelithe said:
Actually, we could reduce it further, it's people who kill people, so restraining orders should be applied to everyone. No one is allowed within 100 feet of anyone else. |
You're comment is hilarious but I laughed even more cus I thought you were taking me seriously when I started reading it xD
So whether or not a gun is armor piercing or not should be the measure now? America has enormously more liberal gun laws than, for example, Sweden. Yet I feel that America is a much more unsafe country in every conceivable way...
NobleTeam360 said:
We are a dying breed my friend |
Cowboys fans?
Teeqoz said:
Self defense is a more legitimate reason to use guns than recreational use is, for the same reason that it's a legitimate reason to use morphine if a pasient is in serious pain, but it's not a legitimate reason to use morphine if it's just to get high. It's not a right to have fun, but you have the right to defend yourself. |
If I am not hurting anyone, what's the legal theory that it is illegitimate for recreational use? Remember, law is based on a groundwork of theory. Also, a lot of people believe that it is right to have the choice to put whatever you want into your body, so that doesn't fly with all of us. And yes, as far as I recall a right to liberty is in the same groundwork that we see for the legal foundation of common law. That also includes the right to pursue whatever interests you want. You see this commonly phrased by classical liberals as: Right to Life, Right to Pursue Happiness(or property), and Right to Liberty. So unless there is a good reason why I shouldn't buy a product and use it for recreation, and by good reason it means it intrudes upon other's rights, both self-defense and recreation are equally legitimate uses of a gun, as they are not illegitimate.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
