Firearms Refresher Course

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='rkwright' date='22 September 2009 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1253635872' post='1971018']
The state can and should restrict some of your "rights" - for the benefit of the common good. For example you have the right to walk down the street but the state can and should tell you to stop at a stop sign in order to ensure the safety of all. You have the right to bear arms, but the state can and should restrict that right in some ways (ie no guns for criminals).

While the bill of rights are meant to protect against state action it should be fairly obvious that the state can limit those at least in a very minor way for the "common good". [/quote]

First, either say "infringe some of your rights," or admit that there is no such thing as a restriction on a right. You can't use contradictory phrases.

Next, what is the "common good?" Can the good of the whole be protected by violating the rights of a minority? If I sinned to uphold the "common good," would it be moral? If I picked one man on a life raft to throw off to save the rest, would that be for the "common good?" The common good is merely the sumtotal of the good of the individuals in society. It is not a "good" extrinsic to the group as individuals. If you violate the rights of one individual, it does not justly benefit the whole.

[quote] Before some people start calling me a communist, I don't take this approach very far. But it is true nonetheless. Think of every right in the bill of rights - there is some, even minor restriction on it (except for maybe housing soldiers...) Freedom of speech - until you create chaos and cause people to be hurt by yelling fire. Freedom of the press - until you publish something that slanders someone's good name. Freedom of religion - until your religion harms others. The old saying is your rights end where mine begin.
[/quote]

Communism? Too specific. You believe in Statism. Statism is the false idea that one has the right to inflict violence on a non-violent adult to make him act according to your will. Whether you use violence against non-violent people personally, or do it by proxy, it is Statism, and it is wrong. My right to carry any defensive weapon violates precisely none of your rights.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Secuutus' date='22 September 2009 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1253648642' post='1971125']
It's just that to me; we, The United States, claim to be a civilized society. What is civilized about owning Machine guns and mechetes?[/quote]

Secuutus, what is "uncivilized" about citizens carrying machine guns and machetes? I start to worry when a man with a gun in the employ of the State talks about a defenseless populace being "civilized."


[quote name ='Secuutus'] I believe we have the right to bear arms, a concealed handgun would do just that. If you have a AR-15 or any other machine gun for safety purposes, wouldnt a handgun do the same damage?[/quote]

I have no need to justify my right to own any defensive weapon I choose, but I will answer your question. An AR-15, firing the 5.56x45, has far more muzzle energy than even a .45 ACP. No, a handgun would not do the same damage. A handgun cannot punch through a kevlar helmet at 600 meters. A 62-grain steel-penetrator M855 round can. That is precisely what the round was designed to do, and if I did not detest the direct gas impingement system, I would say everyone who is not currently in prison or in an asylum should own an AR-15. As it is, I believe everyone who is not currently in prison or in an asylum should own an M-14.

[quote]They both possess bullets, and bullets have 2 purposes to hurt and to kill. So now your probably saying, well then if they both have 2 purposses then why can't I own one then? Well because it is not civilized. Any decent human being likes to be civilized, right?
[/quote]

Are you actually saying that civilians are "uncivilized" if they own AR-15s, SAWs, M240Gs, and the like? What does that make the State military? How are they, given these powers and tools by an imprudent electorate, more civilized than the electorate which bestowed these tools upon them?

It is very civilized to be armed to the teeth. As Robert Heinlein said, an armed society is a polite society. Politeness is a decent indication of a very refined society. Switzerland has not been involved in a major war in over 400 years. The citizenry is armed to the teeth. Would you dare call them "uncivilized?"

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' date='22 September 2009 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1253651574' post='1971137']
I don't care to be civilised. I'll settle for moral. It's not immoral to own a selective fire weapon.

And AR-15 isn't a machine gun, it's a semi-automatic rifle. The military version is considered an assault rifle, not a machine gun. Without selective fire, a semi-automatic rifle, even chambered with less than a full-size rifle round, is not an assault rifle. High capacity does not an assault rifle make.

You should be more careful with your terms, since you're in the killing business these are your tools.
[/quote]

An excellent response.

~Sternhauser

[CatherineM]

This whole thread is giving me Law School flashbacks.

[Secuutus]

I just don't see the point to owning those type of weapons for personal use. sorry, I just don't see it.

[dauntingknight]

[quote name='Secuutus' date='22 September 2009 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1253670209' post='1971268']
I just don't see the point to owning those type of weapons for personal use. sorry, I just don't see it.
[/quote]If that's your opinion then fine BUT, i wil leave you with these parting words.
1. I don't dial 911
2. It takes aproximittely 3 minutes for a cop to get to the scene, a person with a personal gun takes 3 seconds to act.
3. Once the freedom of our second amendment rights are taken away the goverment can restrict our freedom faster.
4. Guns have two enemys RUST and POLITICIONS.
5. The person with the better gun will always have the 1+ advantage.
6. With proper use of the firearm we can prevent crime and fight it.

-Pax-

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Secuutus' date='22 September 2009 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1253670209' post='1971268']
I just don't see the point to owning those type of weapons for personal use. sorry, I just don't see it.
[/quote]

You did not answer any of my questions.

Private ownership and use of those kinds of weapons is a far safer situation for everyone than a situation in which the possessors of such weapons are paid to carry and use them. That is a simple fact proven by the 20th Century alone.

This is not a personal attack, it is a confrontation of your beliefs: despite your good intentions, the ideology which you are espousing is elitism.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='dauntingknight' date='22 September 2009 - 09:09 PM' timestamp='1253671753' post='1971276']
3. Once the freedom of our second amendment rights are taken away the goverment can restrict our freedom faster.
[/quote]
I don't think the government is afraid of your gun. If they wanted to restrict freedoms, they would.

[Varg]

[quote name='Winchester' date='22 September 2009 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1253653277' post='1971152']
The feeling is mutual.
[/quote]Not coming to the UK anytime soon, the,? Hm...If you do come to Europe, visit Switzerland. It has the hioghest death rate in Europe due to the gun laws, you'll feel right at home.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Varg' date='23 September 2009 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1253720567' post='1971484']
Not coming to the UK anytime soon, the,? Hm...If you do come to Europe, visit Switzerland. It has the hioghest death rate in Europe due to the gun laws, you'll feel right at home.
[/quote]

Death rate, perhaps. It turns out that Scotland has the second highest [i]murder[/i] rate, however, bested only by Finland. [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/sep/26/ukcrime.scotland"]Scotland has second highest murder rate, says British news agency.[/url] I don't think it is fitting to blame moral evil on an inanimate object, as the news agency attempts. Whether that inanimate object be alcohol, drugs, or firearms.

A homogenous and homogenously socialised society is another huge factor in the the relatively low European crime rates. In many other countries, the State has taken pains (admittedly unwittingly) to ensure the dependency of poor people on the State. They supplement their income by means which, while sinful, are not strictly criminal, though they are criminalised.

When it comes to violent crime as a whole, a Dutch university study found that Britain and Australia topped the list, with 26% of all Brits victimized in a violent crime, while the United State did not even make the top ten list. [url="http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html"]Dutch Crime Study[/url]

Some of my British, Australian, and New Zealand acquaintances have told me it is very peaceful here compared to their countries, and they do not want to go home.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[CatherineM]

The hoods in my neighborhood can't afford guns, so they stab each other. They still end up just as dead.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='23 September 2009 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1253726643' post='1971541']
The hoods in my neighborhood can't afford guns, so they stab each other. They still end up just as dead.
[/quote]
It's even worse in Saskatoon, for the same reasons.
The gun crime in Calgary is relatively new- the Asian gangs really started stepping up their game in the last few years.

[Varg]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='23 September 2009 - 12:46 PM' timestamp='1253724414' post='1971519']
Death rate, perhaps. It turns out that Scotland has the second highest [i]murder[/i] rate, however, bested only by Finland. [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/sep/26/ukcrime.scotland"]Scotland has second highest murder rate, says British news agency.[/url] I don't think it is fitting to blame moral evil on an inanimate object, as the news agency attempts. Whether that inanimate object be alcohol, drugs, or firearms.

A homogenous and homogenously socialised society is another huge factor in the the relatively low European crime rates. In many other countries, the State has taken pains (admittedly unwittingly) to ensure the dependency of poor people on the State. They supplement their income by means which, while sinful, are not strictly criminal, though they are criminalised.

When it comes to violent crime as a whole, a Dutch university study found that Britain and Australia topped the list, with 26% of all Brits victimized in a violent crime, while the United State did not even make the top ten list. [url="http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html"]Dutch Crime Study[/url]

Some of my British, Australian, and New Zealand acquaintances have told me it is very peaceful here compared to their countries, and they do not want to go home.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]I'm sorry but you're arguement doesn't hold water. America has the 24th highest murder rate worldwide. The UK is number 46. And do you know the reason crime is so high in the UK? Our government, the Labour Party refuses to do anything about it. Crime went up by 77% since they came to power.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Varg' date='23 September 2009 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1253720567' post='1971484']
Not coming to the UK anytime soon, the,? Hm...If you do come to Europe, visit Switzerland. It has the hioghest death rate in Europe due to the gun laws, you'll feel right at home.
[/quote]
You.
[img]http://www.fatblokeracing.org/images/fultonhogan.jpg[/img]

Edited September 23, 2009 by Winchester

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Varg' date='23 September 2009 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1253727276' post='1971551']
I'm sorry but you're arguement doesn't hold water. America has the 24th highest murder rate worldwide. The UK is number 46.[/quote]

Your culture is almost homogenous. It is becoming less so every day, but it is still quite homogenous. Other European countries are more homogenous. The murder rate in the United State, as I am sure it is in the British State, is almost wholly cordoned off in the realm of young, drug dealing thugs. "Hoodies," as you call them. If you're not involved with their trade, you don't become a statistic. I'm very happy with my personal murder ratio: I stay out of other people's business transactions, and they don't perforate me. It works out well.

Certainly, murders are more common, here, but your country is not a stone's throw away from the major countries that produce criminalised drugs. The murder rate is hardly a problem if you are not involved in the drug trade. You should come over for a visit sometime,and see how peaceful it actually is here. It would give you the chance to cut through the media hype.

[quote]And do you know the reason crime is so high in the UK? Our government, the Labour Party refuses to do anything about it. Crime went up by 77% since they came to power.
[/quote]

Who was responsible for all but banning firearms after Dunblane? Was it not the Labour party? You would think the crime rate would have fallen through the floor after they banned them, would you not? Knives became a lot more popular after the aftermath, despite the statutory prohibition against carrying [i]them.[/i] This is not surprising. Personally, I'd rather get shot to death than sliced to death, given the choice.

They banned firearms, there, and they're quite statutorially-accepted here, yet we have an infinitely lower violent crime rate. In one of the mini-States, (which is about as culturally homogenous to your State) Vermont, any adult who can legally own a firearm may carry it, openly or concealed, without a permission slip from any other man. Their murder rate is 1.5 per 100,000. Britain's is 1.1 per 100,000. Vermont's rate is about equal to that of Britain. And their violent crime rate is second to lowest within the United State. How is that possible?

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser