Georgiapacking.org banner

61 - 80 of 86 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
Thorsen said:
I think you are incorrect. If you exercised your god-given right for self-preservation and protection in the case of an attack on your person, and used a class III weapon in auto mode to do so, you have unnecessarily put innocent lives at risk.
That is use, not carry. I have not seen anyone on this board or any other for that matter argue that use of firearms should not be regulated. It doesn't matter what type of weapon you use, if you shoot innocents, you should be punished. Punished for what you did, not for what you used to do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Thorsen said:
Rammstein said:
Thorsen said:
I do not think that a citizen should be allowed to walk around carrying a fully automatic firearm though.
What's the difference?
The chance of collateral damage is too great, in my opinion.
A private pilot has a greater chance of causing mass destruction beyond just loss of life. A fully automatic weapon cannot cause millions of dollars in damaged buildings. A plane can.

What MAY happen is not a justifiable reason to limit the rights of others. Hell...someone may shoot up a school tomorrow. Should we ban guns because the chance of collateral damage is too great?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,226 Posts
Rammstein said:
A private pilot has a greater chance of causing mass destruction beyond just loss of life. A fully automatic weapon cannot cause millions of dollars in damaged buildings. A plane can.

What MAY happen is not a justifiable reason to limit the rights of others. Hell...someone may shoot up a school tomorrow. Should we ban guns because the chance of collateral damage is too great?
Rammstein, I never played with hypotheticals as you are implying. I spoke in certainties.

It is a fact that a fully automatic capable weapon fired in that mode is less accurate than one fired in single shot mode.

It is a fact that in the military, the only purpose for firing a weapon in fully automatic mode is to suppress enemy fire or as a defense against a massed enemy charging you. You fire in either single shot or three round burst if you are targeting a specific enemy.

It is a fact that a situation requiring the use of a fully automatic capable weapon for self-defense is statistically insignificant as the only possible legitimate need for such would be a mob scenario with the mob assaulting you in mass.

Therefore, we are back to my original conclusion, that being since a fully automatic weapon fired in that mode is not a discriminatory weapon, and the chance of causing collateral damage due to cyclic rate and accuracy is a real threat, there is no reasonable reason for any citizen to carry such a weapon for personal defense.

So yes, just as society limits your rights of free speech in regards to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater due to the real potential for causing harm weighed against your individual right; so should society limit your second amendment right when it comes to a personal defense weapon.

And to your arguement about banning guns ..... I know I am new to this board, but you have read my postings. You already know my stance, so that is a classic straw-man argument.

No where have I advocated banning any firearm, to include automatic weaponry. In this very thread, I have stated I would enjoy owning class III weaponry. I also believe most forms of gun control to not only be idiotic, but also downright dangerous to the American people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Thorsen said:
that being since a fully automatic weapon fired in that mode is not a discriminatory weapon, and the chance of causing collateral damage due to cyclic rate and accuracy is a real threat
And if a problem should arise from the use of such weapon, punish it. Don't punish others when no crime has been committed.

I detest when people want to play the Minority Report game.

No prior restraint. Hurt the life, liberty, or property of another then suffer the consequences; otherwise, one should live their life devoid of government intervention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,226 Posts
Rammstein, we have laws to prevent people from being hurt by others. Take, for example, our DUI laws. As a society, we don't wait for someone to be run over and killed by a drunk driver. We pay troopers to remove them from the highways, hopefully before they kill themselves or others.

The same thing with what we are talking about. If you can not articulate a need for carrying such a weapon for personal defense beyond "its my right" then you and no other citizen should be carrying such a firearm. There is no need for you to do so.

You may believe it is your "right", but the courts have pretty much ruled overwhelmingly against your belief in an unfettered second amendment ... as well they should. No right is absolute. Your rights end when they bump up against the rights of others. And as you, nor anyone else here, can articulate a reason for the necessity of carrying a fully automatic weapon for self-defense, then the potential damage to society by its use does outweigh your individual right.

Now do I think the second amendment as it is currently applied is erroneous? Damn straight I do. I wouldn't be a lifetime member of the NRA and a new member to GCO if I didn't.

I don't agree with the court rulings that have delegated the second amendment to collective status. I think it is clearly spelled out as an individual right. I also think that the supreme court allowing this process to go on for so long has significantly eroded this right in all areas of this country, with it being practically gone in some areas.

But if you will only be satisfied if the second is interpreted to be an individual unfettered right, then I can pretty well assure you that you will never be satisfied.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Thorsen said:
Take, for example, our DUI laws.
We have laws against DUI because driving impaired is a tangible threat.

Carrying a weapon is not. Weapons don't just go off.

Thorsen said:
If you can not articulate a need for carrying such a weapon for personal defense beyond "its my right" then you and no other citizen should be carrying such a firearm.
DC, Detroit, NYC, and NJ use the same argument.

Thorsen said:
There is no need for you to do so.
I and I alone determine my needs. I stay in my lane and expect others to do the same when it comes to life decisions.

Thorsen said:
You may believe it is your "right", but the courts have pretty much ruled overwhelmingly against your belief in an unfettered second amendment
That doesn't make it correct.

Thorsen said:
Your rights end when they bump up against the rights of others.
No. Let's be very clear about this point. My right to do something ends when I infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another; not bump up against. Sarah Brady may not like the fact that I carry a pistol, her feelings may be hurt. However, her hurt feelings are not justification to strip me of my right to carry a firearm.

Thorsen said:
And as you, nor anyone else here, can articulate a reason for the necessity of carrying a fully automatic weapon for self-defense, then the potential damage to society by its use does outweigh your individual right.
This argument can, and has, been used before; but replace fully automatic weapon with auto-loading high-capacity pistols [like a Glock].

As it has been pointed out by MP, the nation of Israel doesn't seem to have a problem with people carrying around fully automatic rifles.

So if the question is: what would happen if we allowed people to carry around fully automatic weapons? We already have a model. And the model is telling us and the rest of the world that the perceived problem is not a problem at all. The fear is unfounded and without merit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
Thorsen,
You keep using the "yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater" as an example. I would argue that the courts are also wrong on this. Yelling fire should be clearly recognized as exercising free speech. Prior restraint is just as wrong here. The fact is, our rights are absolute, whether the government chooses to recognize that fact or not. The only power the government should have is to punish if by exercising our right we infringe on someone elses rights. If we yell "fire!" and everyone just looks at us like we are stupid, no harm, no foul. If it causes a stampede for the exits, than there is an infringement and government has a duty to step in. noone's rights are infringed if I walk down the street with a selective fire AK slung across my back (or an M16 in Ramm's case). If I flip it to full auto to defend myself from an assault AND indiscriminately send dozens of bullets flying wildly down the street, then there is an infringement. If you say that there is no need for me to have it, you are making the same argument as the Brady bunch and are reduced to arguing over where the line should be drawn as to what we should be allowed to own or carry. I say there should be no line to draw.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Plus one on the whole post fallison.

fallison said:
If I flip it to full auto to defend myself from an assault AND indiscriminately send dozens of bullets flying wildly down the street, then there is an infringement.
Yep. The whole concept of shooting a full auto and hitting innocents is no different then being a crappy shot with a revolver and hitting innocents.

In both cases innocents have been hit by a stray bullet, the only difference is the tool with which that end was brought about.

The tool is not the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,226 Posts
We have laws against DUI because driving impaired is a tangible threat.
So is opening fire with a fully automatic weapon. I have been both an enlisted man serving in the Army and an officer as well. I am very familiar with the armaments used by a company or battalion element and the reasons for using a weapon in full auto mode. Unless you are being attacked in mass, are fighting your way through an ambush or are laying down suppressive fire with a crew-served weapon, you simply do not use the full auto function. It wastes ammo and is innacurrate to boot. I don't know how many different ways to say the same thing ..... our military does not even use full auto to take out individual targets. For accuracy's sake single or three round bursts are used. If our military recognizes the decreased accuracy of a fully automatic burst, why can you not recognize the same? If you do recognize the same, then you have to admit that using a weapon in that manner against an assailant puts the surrounding innocent members of society at an unreasonable and unnecessary risk. Ergo, using a weapon in that manner is a tangible threat to society.

Carrying a weapon is not. Weapons don't just go off.
I could care less if you carried around a LAW with you. If you could backpack a gatlin, more power to you. The use of that weapon is what I have been talking about.

DC, Detroit, NYC, and NJ use the same argument.
So because I won't buy into your arguement that it is your right to carry around a fully automatic weapon, you lump me in with the cities that disarm their law abiding populace? Get real. You're back to straw-man arguments again.

I and I alone determine my needs. I stay in my lane and expect others to do the same when it comes to life decisions.
Sorry Rammstein. As long as you live in society, expect to have to play by society's rules. Whether you believe it or not, my stance on the right to carry firearms is pretty far to the right. I don't believe that any restriction should be placed on my right to carry a firearm for self-protection. Most people, even those who consider themselves pro-second amendment, disagree with me. I am definitely in the minority.

Your stance, that the second amendment should be an absolute and unfettered right is even farther to the right of mine. Perhaps you don't realize it, but that places you in a tiny minority position. Don't count on that position changing any time in the future.

No. Let's be very clear about this point. My right to do something ends when I infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another; not bump up against. Sarah Brady may not like the fact that I carry a pistol, her feelings may be hurt. However, her hurt feelings are not justification to strip me of my right to carry a firearm.
So now I get compared to Sarah Brady? :roll: Either totally with you or against you, huh? Good luck with that.

Oh and you'll have to educate me on the difference between "bump up against" and "infringe". In my view both mean the same thing .... the exercise of your rights are in conflict with someone else's.

This argument can, and has, been used before; but replace fully automatic weapon with auto-loading high-capacity pistols [like a Glock].
And those people are wrong. Just like the "gun free zone" people. Just like the "ban all firearms and we will all be safe" people. I believe in the natural law view that everyone has the right to be safe in their person and to use deadly force if necessary to ensure that safety. I could care less if the weapon being used has a capacity of 10,000 rounds. As long as it is single fire only. Accuracy is not diminished, cyclic rate doesn't come into play leading to potentially hundreds of rounds being placed downrange in a short timespan, therefore the weapon is as discriminatory as the marksmanship of the user can make it meaning that potential threat to innocents is as low as the shooter can make the situation while still protecting their person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,226 Posts
fallison said:
Thorsen,
You keep using the "yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater" as an example. I would argue that the courts are also wrong on this. Yelling fire should be clearly recognized as exercising free speech. Prior restraint is just as wrong here. The fact is, our rights are absolute, whether the government chooses to recognize that fact or not. The only power the government should have is to punish if by exercising our right we infringe on someone elses rights. If we yell "fire!" and everyone just looks at us like we are stupid, no harm, no foul. If it causes a stampede for the exits, than there is an infringement and government has a duty to step in. noone's rights are infringed if I walk down the street with a selective fire AK slung across my back (or an M16 in Ramm's case). If I flip it to full auto to defend myself from an assault AND indiscriminately send dozens of bullets flying wildly down the street, then there is an infringement. If you say that there is no need for me to have it, you are making the same argument as the Brady bunch and are reduced to arguing over where the line should be drawn as to what we should be allowed to own or carry. I say there should be no line to draw.
Then fallison you and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree, because you will never convince me that all rights are absolutes. I would also suggest to you much the same as I did to Rammstein, that if you will not be satisfied until your individual rights are recognized as absolute by society, you will never be satisfied.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
895 Posts
Thorsen said:
Then fallison you and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree, because you will never convince me that all rights are absolutes. I would also suggest to you much the same as I did to Rammstein, that if you will not be satisfied until your individual rights are recognized as absolute by society, you will never be satisfied.
I may never be satisfied but I will also never quit fighting for what I believe. And I am good at agreeing to disagree because as you said, I take a tiny minority position. But that is the genius of what the founders of this nation did. Our rights are not dependant upon how many people we can convince to agree with us.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,067 Posts
Thorsen said:
I do not think there is a need to carry any fully automatic weaponry as a self-defense firearm.
Thorsen, you finally convinced me. :D "Need" should be the test of my rights.

:wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,226 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
Thorsen said:
I do not think there is a need to carry any fully automatic weaponry as a self-defense firearm.
Thorsen, you finally convinced me. :D "Need" should be the test of my rights.

:wink:
Not even attempting to convince you or anyone else Malum. I posted what I thought and have responded to direct questions ever since.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,067 Posts
The point being, of course, that I do not think one "needs" to carry a full auto daily for self protection, either, in normal circumstances, but my personal political philosophy refuses to put people in jail when I do not think they "need" to do something.

Punish those who actually DO the thing you worry about (recklessly harm innocent bystanders).

Is this a reality in countries where automatic weapons are more common (Israel, carry, Switzerland, in home)?
 

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,724 Posts
Sometimes extreme situations call for extreme measures. A week or so ago a young man was attacked by a group of up to 20 people outside of Six Flags. He wasn't just punched a few times, he was kicked and stomped after he was down. I believe he is still hospitalized. His life was in grave danger durring and after the attack. I would call that an extreme situation. Carrying and protecting yourself with a Glock 18 is an extreme measure. A few controlled bursts from that G18 could have stopped that attack long before it did end. Please not my use of 'controlled bursts' as opposed to spraying and praying. Could a 5 shot revolver have had the same effect? Maybe, maybe not. I personally would not want to have to trust 5 shots to protect me from up to 20 people attacking at once. This is the same reason that I'm in favor of standard cap magazines, meaning the pre Clinton ban standard, and against neutered 10 round mags.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
27,993 Posts
Discussion Starter #78
Forget the Second

Let's pretend the 2nd Amendment was repealed and we had the freedom to write a new gun control policy / gun right policy from scratch.

I would say that guns that are relatively harmless to society and not very sought-after by nutcases and criminals should be unregulated. Just like knives are. Maybe an age requirement to buy them and restrictions about brandishing them in public or carrying them to school, but that's about it. A single-shot .22 would be in this category.

Guns that are more dangerous should be regulated more. Not banned, but subject to more checks of who can buy them, who can own them, where they may be carried, etc. I think both an M16 and the semi-auto AR-15 fit into that category. I don't really consider the full-auto feature to be that much of an increase in deadliness. I think magazine capacity combined with easy reloading makes more of a difference.

The most dangerous weapons should be regulated the most, or even banned to ordinary civilian individuals. Field artillery. Blocks of C4 explosive. Rocket launchers. Hand grenades. N-B-C- weapons. So long as no criminals, terrorists, nutcases, or gang-bangers seem to have any interest in acquiring working howitzers, I might allow collectors to have them as expensive toys. But if such weapons fall into the hands of the wrong people and bad things happen, or if the public is nervous about the possibility of such weapons in general circulation, I'd ban them. There would be no right to own such things, for individuals.

As an aside, I think the best way to implement the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment is to actually have an organized popular militia to which nearly every person belongs, with a short period of active duty service and several years of "reserve" status. These militia units should not be in any way affiliated with the federal government, and they should not depend on the feds for their equipment, funding, training, and officer corps. These militia units should be state controlled (not city or county, due to too much risk of corruption and the militia being seen as the private "army" of some crooked politician or powerful businessman).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,306 Posts
Re: Forget the Second

gunsmoker said:
Let's pretend the 2nd Amendment was repealed
Why don't we pretend that a bunch of DWG's actually wrote a Constitution and actually protect and defend it.

The entire argument about not knowing what the intent of the founding fathers is farcical. We have enough written documents which show their true intent which they captured upon completion of the Constitution.

Caving in and changing the document's intent because of what is or isn't socially acceptable is not only irresponsible, it is not ethical.

If I did what is socially acceptable I wouldn't OC at all, and I would sell my guns.
 
61 - 80 of 86 Posts
Top