My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?
This question has been discussed in a variety of threads. Are you asking it again out of innocence or is this some sort of baiting tactic where you have a pre-conceived notion of the answer and just want a chance to refute it? Sorta like what some folks have accused unsung of, for example, in his "what's an assault rifle?" thread.
My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?
This question has been discussed in a variety of threads. Are you asking it again out of innocence or is this some sort of baiting tactic where you have a pre-conceived notion of the answer and just want a chance to refute it? Sorta like what some folks have accused unsung of, for example, in his "what's an assault rifle?" thread.
If it has been discussed - and an actual answer given - I would like a link to those threads. I have asked the question myself a few times and have yet to receive an actual answer. Lots of rhetoric but not a lot of reason.
My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?
This question has been discussed in a variety of threads. Are you asking it again out of innocence or is this some sort of baiting tactic where you have a pre-conceived notion of the answer and just want a chance to refute it? Sorta like what some folks have accused unsung of, for example, in his "what's an assault rifle?" thread.
Out of innocence. I don't want to bait anyone. It's just something I've been wondering a lot about in the past year.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
I didn't really make that claim. And when I did come close to it, I caveated it pretty clearly. In fact in my next post my only claim was an implicit one that I (me, motodc, mike, whatever) made about myself, though upon re-read I may not have worded it as clearly as I could have (was trying to be clever -- "says the guy who doesn't think that way to the guy who does."). My point was, I think I know how I would react should the world change as discussed better than you know it.
It's interesting that where you say "the general populace", I would probably replace with "a very publicized minority of nutjobs", which to me is a quite different analysis.
I'm not advocating anarchy. Examples like speed limits, DUI enforcement, hard drug prohibition are more defensible because they are mainly in place to protect us from each other. Protecting us from ourselves is where I believe the gov't starts to go off its tracks. If you accept that, then it becomes a question of defining which activities impact others and which only impact ourselves. It's an admittedly gray and inexact analysis, but an important one. Drugs are a good example and one that we've gone 'round and 'round about here on AMT. Before you launch in, I recognize that this means that firearm ownership would need to pass this same moral test were we to accept the test as a requisite one. That's nothing new, really, it's at the center of most of the debate here; namely, whether my right to defend myself against oppression (foreign, domestic, federal, etc) trumps the right to be supposedly protected from one-off nutjobs using my mode of self-defense to commit their heinous acts. Of course that presumes that restricting legal firearm ownership (or banning it, depending on your preferred flavor) would actually protect anyone from said nutjobs -- yet another open topic of debate here and elsewhere.
As for your statement about the "original intent of formalized gov't", as least with respect to that of the United States, I couldn't have said it better myself. But as so many in the anti-gun camp would say, what does that have to do with the reality we face today?
I think those things are to protect us from each other as MUCH as protecting us from ourselves. Yes, MOST people don't need laws out of our own natural instinct not to do dangerous things such as excessive speeding or using heroin, but laws aren't enacted with the law abiding in mind. They are made for the lowest common denominator that need those laws in place to tell them what is appropriate in society, and if those laws aren't followed, you are punished. An AR-15 is not, in my opinion, appropriate.
a non-automatic rifle or handgun at HOME is appropriate. carrying a concealed weapon around in public is not appropriate.
it has to do with this thread, and the comment made that the goverment wants to control us at every turn. I personally don't believe that. Because there seem to be people out there who actually believe that government takeover in this day and age in the US is actually plausible. And quite frankly, I'd call those people a little bit cukoo.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?
This question has been discussed in a variety of threads. Are you asking it again out of innocence or is this some sort of baiting tactic where you have a pre-conceived notion of the answer and just want a chance to refute it? Sorta like what some folks have accused unsung of, for example, in his "what's an assault rifle?" thread.
Out of innocence. I don't want to bait anyone. It's just something I've been wondering a lot about in the past year.
I've also asked this several times, and the only answer that ever comes around is "it's in the constitution!". No actual reason why that caliber of weaponry is necessary is ever answered without invoking the second amendment.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?
Why does someone feel they need an AR-15? I cannot answer that for every single person, but I can say that, in my opinion of course, the question isn't all that pertinent to a gun control debate. The answer is so much more than simply saying, you don't need a bushmaster for hunting. Well, I don't think anyone would argue that you do, but you may need one to defend your home some day. Some people subscribe to the idea that I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I don't have one, I know my .380 or 12 guage will do the job just fine if someone breaks into my home, and I don't believe I am a ninja warrior so if the zombie apocalypse does occur I am probably going to be more of a Dale than a Rick.
So, while some folks believe you will never NEED an AR-15, others firmly believe they will benefit from owning them, and who is to say who is right? The real question is are we going to limit the 2nd amendment to weapons that some feel will do the job, and others feel are too dangerous?
Personally I think the clear and present danger test is sufficient. I think it can be shown that buying a gun without a thorough background check and no wait time can pose a clear and present danger. But I don't think all automatic weapons should be outlawed because they, on their own, do not pose that same clear and present danger.
I think going down the road of greater scrutiny on who can buy them legally is much more constitutional than going down the road of banning certain weapons because we believe they pose a greater danger than others. We could start by holding gun shop owners liable pending an investigation for selling weapons to those who commit crimes with them. I am certain that if we did that, gun shop owners would be VERY careful who they sold their stock too, or we may create a larger black market...Damned if you do I suppose...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?
Why does someone feel they need an AR-15? I cannot answer that for every single person, but I can say that, in my opinion of course, the question isn't all that pertinent to a gun control debate. The answer is so much more than simply saying, you don't need a bushmaster for hunting. Well, I don't think anyone would argue that you do, but you may need one to defend your home some day. Some people subscribe to the idea that I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I don't have one, I know my .380 or 12 guage will do the job just fine if someone breaks into my home, and I don't believe I am a ninja warrior so if the zombie apocalypse does occur I am probably going to be more of a Dale than a Rick.
So, while some folks believe you will never NEED an AR-15, others firmly believe they will benefit from owning them, and who is to say who is right? The real question is are we going to limit the 2nd amendment to weapons that some feel will do the job, and others feel are too dangerous?
Personally I think the clear and present danger test is sufficient. I think it can be shown that buying a gun without a thorough background check and no wait time can pose a clear and present danger. But I don't think all automatic weapons should be outlawed because they, on their own, do not pose that same clear and present danger.
I think going down the road of greater scrutiny on who can buy them legally is much more constitutional than going down the road of banning certain weapons because we believe they pose a greater danger than others. We could start by holding gun shop owners liable pending an investigation for selling weapons to those who commit crimes with them. I am certain that if we did that, gun shop owners would be VERY careful who they sold their stock too, or we may create a larger black market...Damned if you do I suppose...
very well said Mike.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?
Why does someone feel they need an AR-15? I cannot answer that for every single person, but I can say that, in my opinion of course, the question isn't all that pertinent to a gun control debate. The answer is so much more than simply saying, you don't need a bushmaster for hunting. Well, I don't think anyone would argue that you do, but you may need one to defend your home some day. Some people subscribe to the idea that I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I don't have one, I know my .380 or 12 guage will do the job just fine if someone breaks into my home, and I don't believe I am a ninja warrior so if the zombie apocalypse does occur I am probably going to be more of a Dale than a Rick.
So, while some folks believe you will never NEED an AR-15, others firmly believe they will benefit from owning them, and who is to say who is right? The real question is are we going to limit the 2nd amendment to weapons that some feel will do the job, and others feel are too dangerous?
Personally I think the clear and present danger test is sufficient. I think it can be shown that buying a gun without a thorough background check and no wait time can pose a clear and present danger. But I don't think all automatic weapons should be outlawed because they, on their own, do not pose that same clear and present danger.
I think going down the road of greater scrutiny on who can buy them legally is much more constitutional than going down the road of banning certain weapons because we believe they pose a greater danger than others. We could start by holding gun shop owners liable pending an investigation for selling weapons to those who commit crimes with them. I am certain that if we did that, gun shop owners would be VERY careful who they sold their stock too, or we may create a larger black market...Damned if you do I suppose...
This is the best answer to this question I have seen anywhere. By far.
My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?
Why does someone feel they need an AR-15? I cannot answer that for every single person, but I can say that, in my opinion of course, the question isn't all that pertinent to a gun control debate. The answer is so much more than simply saying, you don't need a bushmaster for hunting. Well, I don't think anyone would argue that you do, but you may need one to defend your home some day. Some people subscribe to the idea that I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I don't have one, I know my .380 or 12 guage will do the job just fine if someone breaks into my home, and I don't believe I am a ninja warrior so if the zombie apocalypse does occur I am probably going to be more of a Dale than a Rick.
So, while some folks believe you will never NEED an AR-15, others firmly believe they will benefit from owning them, and who is to say who is right? The real question is are we going to limit the 2nd amendment to weapons that some feel will do the job, and others feel are too dangerous?
Personally I think the clear and present danger test is sufficient. I think it can be shown that buying a gun without a thorough background check and no wait time can pose a clear and present danger. But I don't think all automatic weapons should be outlawed because they, on their own, do not pose that same clear and present danger.
I think going down the road of greater scrutiny on who can buy them legally is much more constitutional than going down the road of banning certain weapons because we believe they pose a greater danger than others. We could start by holding gun shop owners liable pending an investigation for selling weapons to those who commit crimes with them. I am certain that if we did that, gun shop owners would be VERY careful who they sold their stock too, or we may create a larger black market...Damned if you do I suppose...
As much as I disagree that weapons like AR-15 should be legal, you always make very good discussion and good well thought out points Mike.
(and I mostly commend that You never needed to bring up drinking and driving to make a good point )
My main point and questions, which I should have written in the OP is, why do citizens need weapons like an AR-15 (or whatever it is) or a Bushmaster, etc.? Weapons that you would find in a war setting. What could be the reason a person needs a gun that has 30 rounds or 100 rounds? What is the purpose of someone having/needing them?
Why does someone feel they need an AR-15? I cannot answer that for every single person, but I can say that, in my opinion of course, the question isn't all that pertinent to a gun control debate. The answer is so much more than simply saying, you don't need a bushmaster for hunting. Well, I don't think anyone would argue that you do, but you may need one to defend your home some day. Some people subscribe to the idea that I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I don't have one, I know my .380 or 12 guage will do the job just fine if someone breaks into my home, and I don't believe I am a ninja warrior so if the zombie apocalypse does occur I am probably going to be more of a Dale than a Rick.
So, while some folks believe you will never NEED an AR-15, others firmly believe they will benefit from owning them, and who is to say who is right? The real question is are we going to limit the 2nd amendment to weapons that some feel will do the job, and others feel are too dangerous?
Personally I think the clear and present danger test is sufficient. I think it can be shown that buying a gun without a thorough background check and no wait time can pose a clear and present danger. But I don't think all automatic weapons should be outlawed because they, on their own, do not pose that same clear and present danger.
I think going down the road of greater scrutiny on who can buy them legally is much more constitutional than going down the road of banning certain weapons because we believe they pose a greater danger than others. We could start by holding gun shop owners liable pending an investigation for selling weapons to those who commit crimes with them. I am certain that if we did that, gun shop owners would be VERY careful who they sold their stock too, or we may create a larger black market...Damned if you do I suppose...
As much as I disagree that weapons like AR-15 should be legal, you always make very good discussion and good well thought out points Mike.
(and I mostly commend that You never needed to bring up drinking and driving to make a good point )
JP, JimmyV, HFD
thanks
This debate gets so heated, and I think that indicates how passionately people want the unnecessary violence to end. Those who own guns and want to keep more guns available really do have the same goal in mind of those who want to ban them all...there has to be a middle ground that people are happy with...I just really hope the regulations focus on the people rather than the products themselves.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
If it has been discussed - and an actual answer given - I would like a link to those threads. I have asked the question myself a few times and have yet to receive an actual answer. Lots of rhetoric but not a lot of reason.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
I think those things are to protect us from each other as MUCH as protecting us from ourselves. Yes, MOST people don't need laws out of our own natural instinct not to do dangerous things such as excessive speeding or using heroin, but laws aren't enacted with the law abiding in mind. They are made for the lowest common denominator that need those laws in place to tell them what is appropriate in society, and if those laws aren't followed, you are punished. An AR-15 is not, in my opinion, appropriate.
a non-automatic rifle or handgun at HOME is appropriate. carrying a concealed weapon around in public is not appropriate.
it has to do with this thread, and the comment made that the goverment wants to control us at every turn. I personally don't believe that. Because there seem to be people out there who actually believe that government takeover in this day and age in the US is actually plausible. And quite frankly, I'd call those people a little bit cukoo.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I've also asked this several times, and the only answer that ever comes around is "it's in the constitution!". No actual reason why that caliber of weaponry is necessary is ever answered without invoking the second amendment.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Why does someone feel they need an AR-15? I cannot answer that for every single person, but I can say that, in my opinion of course, the question isn't all that pertinent to a gun control debate. The answer is so much more than simply saying, you don't need a bushmaster for hunting. Well, I don't think anyone would argue that you do, but you may need one to defend your home some day. Some people subscribe to the idea that I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I don't have one, I know my .380 or 12 guage will do the job just fine if someone breaks into my home, and I don't believe I am a ninja warrior so if the zombie apocalypse does occur I am probably going to be more of a Dale than a Rick.
So, while some folks believe you will never NEED an AR-15, others firmly believe they will benefit from owning them, and who is to say who is right? The real question is are we going to limit the 2nd amendment to weapons that some feel will do the job, and others feel are too dangerous?
Personally I think the clear and present danger test is sufficient. I think it can be shown that buying a gun without a thorough background check and no wait time can pose a clear and present danger. But I don't think all automatic weapons should be outlawed because they, on their own, do not pose that same clear and present danger.
I think going down the road of greater scrutiny on who can buy them legally is much more constitutional than going down the road of banning certain weapons because we believe they pose a greater danger than others. We could start by holding gun shop owners liable pending an investigation for selling weapons to those who commit crimes with them. I am certain that if we did that, gun shop owners would be VERY careful who they sold their stock too, or we may create a larger black market...Damned if you do I suppose...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
very well said Mike.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
This is the best answer to this question I have seen anywhere. By far.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
As much as I disagree that weapons like AR-15 should be legal, you always make very good discussion and good well thought out points Mike.
(and I mostly commend that You never needed to bring up drinking and driving to make a good point
JP, JimmyV, HFD
thanks
This debate gets so heated, and I think that indicates how passionately people want the unnecessary violence to end. Those who own guns and want to keep more guns available really do have the same goal in mind of those who want to ban them all...there has to be a middle ground that people are happy with...I just really hope the regulations focus on the people rather than the products themselves.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan