So who are the trusted in your scenario? So the people’s only means physical resistance will be what? Rocks?
The NSA and by extension, the govt. has shown us that our constitutional rights mean very little in the face of “security”. These would be the same people you entrust to be the only ones who would be wielding weapons?
I don’t think I said anything to imply that they were. I understand where gun control advocates are coming from, and I think most gun control advocates are perfectly reasonable people. However, I also think that most gun owners are perfectly reasonable people, which is probably the place where I really differ from most folks on bbs.
My comment was a direct response to @groonkame’s implication that people who support gun control are doing so out of “personal fears and hysteria” and need to “man up.”
The only thing that might make me call you crazy is engaging from a gun-control position with someone whose avatar is an actual gun. 
Your ‘armed defence against tyranny’ fantasy would achieve precisely nothing save the harm of bystanders. That is not, and never will be the way to effect that change.
You’re using a very particular definition of “offensive weapon” that comes from a highly partisan source. I don’t understand why you expect some highly constrained definition of a putative expert to factor heavily into this discussion.
It’s essentially a game of “no true scotsman”. You’re saying handguns don’t meet some exacting definition of the term “offensive weapon” and therefore shouldn’t be regulated. However, handguns are used in the majority of violent crime that’s being discussed in context. So maybe your extra special definition of “offensive weapon” just isn’t applicable in context and you need to accept that handguns make fine offensive weapons in the relevant context.
If you really need me to track down accurate handguns with long ranges I’m sure I could find some, incidentally. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that there’s a lot of different kinds of pistols with widely varying specifications and applications.
Funny (in a bad way) how gun-owners rarely if ever answer such questions.
It must be part of their Secret Talking Points Playbook: “Pay no attention to that part of the Amendment!”
In my previous post, I tried to be pretty careful not to say that nobody buys a gun because of fear and hysteria - I know that some people do. But like I said, the folks I know are reasonable, responsible, and law-abiding people.
Well said, though. I agree with you. There are certainly both gun nuts and anti-gun nuts, and the extremes really are what seem to get all of the attention in the debate.
Check out the latest and greatest in 3d printed guns here:
I’m going to avoid the rest of the debate, but these have gotten a lot better very quickly.
Oh, I see.
Don’t be too proud of this technological forum you’ve constructed. The ability to destroy a logical fallacy is insignificant next to the power of right-wing sockpuppet Copypasta.
Well, the fugitive slave hunting theory is based on the work of precisely one historian. I’m not in a position to judge how good a case he makes but it’s at best a controversial conclusion.
However, Federalist #29 makes it pretty clear that the “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” part of the amendment isn’t just window dressing.
I want The Copypasta to be a fallen Spaghettti Monster.
Attacking the reason behind something is going to lead to a long term solution. If you removed all the guns tomorrow by magic, everything that causes violent crime would still be in place and crime will continue. You may see a reduction in the number of deaths, but you haven’t really cured anything.
It’s already illegal for criminals (felons) to have guns - they don’t generally acquire them through legal means. More gun laws won’t stop this.
It’s already illegal for the mentally ill to buy a gun. Of course there currently isn’t a system in place to verify if you have lied on the ATF form or not. That would be a whole mess if HIPPA laws I imagine. Then there will be the question of what constitutes “mentally ill”. To what degree of instability do you have to have to be banned? How does one rate and determine this? Certainly people are ill to different degrees, from something so mild it doesn’t really effect them day to day, to those so bad they need full time care. It is an issue we should address, but it is an extremely complicated one with a lot of nuances.
The mentally ill comprise of only a small percentage of gun crime. Drugs and gangs account for most of it, and I think those two issues should be addressed first.
Handguns are tools. They happen to be one of the best tools for both some heinous and noble purposes. I believe ownership should have some limits, defined as – criminal background check, mental health history, handling education, and storage requirements (already in place in CA). I suppose that puts me as an enemy of both ends of the spectrum, despite having a strong belief in the 2nd Amendment right (“regulated” means trained and that whole sentence fragment is separate from what follows).
I equate ownership of handguns to ownership of fire extinguishers. I hope to never use either in a defensive manner. Police are a reactionary force, even if you support their existence (debated often here!). They do not generally prevent crime or help you defend yourself. It is not always convenient or prudent to carry a long gun (rifle or shotgun), even on your own property or inside your home. Hand guns are the right tool for some of life’s fires.
I am also in the camp that if firearms are outlawed then only outlaws will have them. I know, catchy jingle. But the underlying reasoning is sound, at least to me. I know not everyone agrees. But I’m seeing enough slippery-slope action on this topic in my lifetime to be on the side of “don’t mess with my gun ownership rights.” The so-called assault weapon ban was pathetic and did not make us any safer. It cost me directly, having to surrender a ‘black rifle’ many years ago.
I don’t belong to one, but that’s an issue you should take up with the Supreme Court, because they seem to agree with me and have agreed with me consistently.
Your argument is nothing but trolling.
Not trying to come off patronizing. I wasn’t referring to you directly. .
Ok, but as you used the word ‘you’ a lot, you can see where I’m coming from.
If you ban me now, I shall return under more fake user-ids and spoofed IPs than you could possibly imagine.
If you don’t see a reduction in the number of deaths – and likely a quite significant one at that – as a cure, then you’re living in some other universe from the one I live in.
Also, working on crime reduction AND on reducing death by gunshots are not mutually exclusive endeavors.
