What's the argument for allowing assault rifles?

If I bought a ton of TNT it would be my private property, but if I lived next door to you, I'm sure you would be concerned as to my ability to safely store and handle it. If I threw myself on the ground and preyed to God every few hours, I'm sure you would be curious as to why I would want it.

I'm bloody sure you'd contact the authorities.

So much for my right to my property.

Yes your body is yours,as is mine my property, but I am also sure that what I do with it, complies to the law.

 

It is your property and if you hurt someone with it, God help you, the society would punish you with the full force they had, for being such a stupid, careless or indifferent person as to endanger another person. It would be criminal charges if you hurt someone, civil if it was only property damage. But that situation obtains today anyway, if you harm someone, you are held responsible for your actions. (In theory, at least)

See, with property comes responsibility.

But before the government decided to stick their nose in the tent, people indeed handled dynamite safely without some nanny looking over their shoulder. So it happened before, and people handled it responsibly.

The last point being that you are making separate categories for the generic concept 'property' and if property rights mean anything at all then it means ALL property. otherwise you have to start explaining the anomalies and you'll quickly find yourself mired in the muck of the internal contradictions.

 

I was just responding to the thought that criminals would like to use a 100lb 6' weapon that will cost $500 per minute to shoot.

But lets consider a much less regulated weapon - the AR-15. Cheaper than an M2, about 50 cents a round, yet it still is almost never used by criminals. It isn't the regulations that make criminals unlikely to use large and expensive weapons. Criminals just prefer small, cheap weapons.

 

We may still fly a flag that reminds us of our past, but we don't live in it. That amendment was written a long time ago, the world was different, less civilized.

Today the world has changed, we are becoming more civilized, well some of us are.

The passage in the Bible that goes something like, "There's a time for planting and a time for harvesting"

Well there was a time when carrying a personal weapon was necessary.

Of course you think I'm siding with those trying to disarm your population so they can take over. That's called paranoia, I'm glad I have more faith in Australia and it's people.

 

Show me were I stated that I would work against my own interestes and make guns prohibitively expensive.

 

Whether or not they are used in crime is irrelevant in my mind.

The potential for misuse is there, so regulations are needed.

 

The Constitution merely lists our God given rights. It's not a list of things "allowed" by the government.

One man's assault rifle is another man's varmint gun.

Lib definition of assault rifle, "any long gun that looks scary".

 

The potential for misuse of oven cleaner is there too, should we regulate that? There is a significant potential for misuse of fast cars, should we regulate them?

Almost everything has the potential for misuse. If that is adequate justification for regulation, nearly everything should be regulated.

 

You would need to prove the existence of God first, then relate the Bill of Rights to whatever Holy text you subscribe to.

More logically, the Bills of Rights grants citizens rights. Other than that, it is a piece of paper.

 

That's your opinion, the document itself states otherwise. The Bill of Rights doesn't "grant" anything. The founders enumerated them as God given rights, but you can call them whatever you like. Natural rights, inherent rights, etc. The bottom line is, The Constitution doesn't "grant" rights.

 

I note how none of you mentioned are weapons.

I don't carry a can of oven cleaner for self-defense. I don't drive a fast car for self-defense. I carry a .40S7W for self-defense. That sub compact handgun has a greater capacity to injure and kill than a can of oven cleaner. There is little reason to be intentially dense, I used the same arguments as you back in my Libertarian days.

My argument does not rest only potential, but actual misuse. People do not use cans of oven cleaner to kill cleaner to kill masses of people in a theater. They use guns. People do not carry cans of oven cleaner for self-defense, they use guns. People will always misuse guns, but thankfully they are a tiny minority. All we can do it limit guns from those who should not possess firearms, and make safe gaurds to ensure such. It is far more reasonable to realize that than to intellectually dishonest in claiming outside one side of your face that a firearm is no different than a can of oven cleaner and out the other strap on your side a .45ACP.

 

I can scribble on a piece of paper that I hear by grant my tenats God given right to an acoustic guitar.

Does that mean that it is a God given right? No. Its a piece of paper. It only has value if people recognize it.

 

I know there are people who like to pretend The Declaration of Independence doesn't exist, or that it is completely unrelated to The Constitution, but the founders felt otherwise. As do a great many Americans today.

 

I don't think any here is arguing that there should not be restrictions on mass murderers and crazy people owning guns. In fact I know there isn't. So.... what's the argument again?

 

I agree, and I don't know about the US, but here, we now have regulations on the sale of fertilizer, no one is disadvantaged, it's better then letting any fool make a bomb. Was it the acts of terrorism that brought the change .. no was it the fact that someone posted How to make fertilizer bombs on the net .. no.
It was because there is enough idiots around to read whats on the net and make a bomb. Why? Why not? They don't need a logical reason ... they're mad.
your ...

... is perfectly demonstrated here.

 

Remember this?

Are you going to start regulating hammers, bats, and rolling pins?

I can't think of an approach that is more prone to misuse than banning items based on the potential to do harm.

Cars are as dangerous as a firearm, and cars kill as many people as firearms (some years a lot more). Once a person gets a DL, they are home free, buy and drive whatever they want. Actually a lot of people drive without a DL. Throw in injury and property damage and cars are far more damaging than firearms.

alcohol is the #1 cause of death for 15-29 year olds (31% of deaths). Overall alcohol kills 2x as many people per year as firearms. Throw in disease and the social impact of alcoholism and alcohol is by far more deadly, costly, and available than firearms.

Ban cars. Ban alcohol - wait, we tried that already, only made the problem worse. And come to think of it, we ban drugs and made that problem worse. And you know what, now that I think about it, theres that book "More guns, less crime". So what do you think is going to happen if we ban guns, or severely restrict their availability?

 

Hmmmmm.... I don't advocate banning guns or severely restricting them.

As I have said many times on this forum.

Your lengthy reply was a waste of time.

 

I am not making the claim that anyone is wishing to allowing the insane to possess a firearm.

I am pointing the distict difference between a firearm and a can of oven cleaner. Mostly, how asinine it is the compare the two as if they were simular.

 

1. In order for rights to God given, rights would be universal.
2. Different governments grant their citizens different right. Some that American have, some that we don't.
3. Observations point that governments decide what rights are and are not granted.

The Founders arbitarily made the statement. What authority did they have? You are looking for your definition of rights from slave owners? Do you see how violating basic human rights sort of... dismisses whatever claims they make?

 

To be clear, assault rifles are not legal in the United States. An assault rifle is a weapon which fires an intermediate cartridge, not a pistol round, and not a rifle round. Secondly they have to have fully automatic or selective fire options. While U.S. legal weapons do fit the first definition, they do not fit the second, which is far more important. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Despite the legal weapons owned by thousands of Americans being true assault rifles, I will grant you that they are assault weapons for the sake of argument. Assault weapons are very rarely used to commit crimes. They are not very concealable, which is the primary attribute which criminals look for. Pistols, illegally sawed off shotguns, and illegally obtained machine pistols and sub-machine guns are far more concealable, and also far more likely to be used in illegal activities. 99% of all assault weapons in the United States will never be used for illegal purposes. If you have ever held or fired one, you would know that they are great fun to fire, and that is exactly why we own them. For the same reason that people buy luxury goods rather than more basic goods, because the luxury goods are more fun.

For the record I personally don't buy the self defense argument for these assault weapons. I would not use mine as a self defense weapon in my home unless I had no choice. Overpenetration is a near certainty with these calibers. For self defense you are much better off with a handgun loaded with hollow point ammunition, or a shotgun loaded with bird or buckshot. Both of which I have loaded in case I ever need them. Oh in case I didn't state my point clearly, I am all for the legal possession of these weapons by private individuals.

 

Agreed, so why do it?


My question, what is your argument? You say guns should be legal. That's what we're saying here... You're saying that restrictions need to be in place for criminals and crazy people. I don't think anyone really disagrees with that. So again, what's the argument here?

 

You come across that way.

 

This is false. Americans can own fully automatic weapons although it does require a special license.

http://www.ehow.com/how_6742869_fully-automatic-gun-license.html

 

I don't think the FF just picked those rights out of the air. They said that god or nature made the conditions needed to survive and that rights are the way to look at yourself in relation to your fellow man.

But, if as you assert, right are what governments grant, then they are not 'rights' but 'permissions', and if we accept that, then we accept that the government can decide if we live or die.

rights either don't exist or they are natural. Pick one of the other. Government 'rights' are a logical horrorshow

 

Arbitrarily made that statement? Are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kidding me? I see you enjoy argument for the sake of it.

And no, I don't see how "how violating basic human rights sort of... dismisses whatever claims they make", especially in light of the fact that the violation of which you speak was corrected. As far as I'm concerned, that lends even more validity to the founder's so-called "arbitrary statements".