[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Thanks, that is perfect.

The initial additions also seem concerned with the militias to me. "no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person" reads as an exception for conscientious objectors on being drafted. Otherwise, its pretty much the same text rearranged several times over. I fail to see the contentiousness of the "well regulated militia" part.

It does seem to stress that militias should be made up of citizens. Was the British army composed differently? I also could interpret " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" as meaning that militia members could keep their weapons, rather than storing them at a local armory or something.

My understanding is the anti-Federalists didn't like the idea of potential federal control of the militia, so they wanted to weaken the militia clause and strengthen the gun clause. The Federalists wanted the militia clause to be first and foremost, since depending upon who you ask, the militia is the free state.

After they duked it out, we got two tons of shit in a one pound bag. The militia part is first, but it's meaning has been pretty well muddled by the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalist protections are clearly elucidated, but placed such they can be interpreted as subordinate to the militia.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

14 day waiting period for all hammers.

I've said on many occasions the best melee weapon an untrained individual can use is a hammer.

Little skill needed, good potential to end the fight in one shot, psychologically easier to use than a knife, and most importantly, if your opponent has an actual weapon, it will be easier to prove self-defense to the cops.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It does seem to stress that militias should be made up of citizens. Was the British army composed differently? I also could interpret " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" as meaning that militia members could keep their weapons, rather than storing them at a local armory or something.

The use of mercenaries in armies was very common at the time. An army of mercenaries would obviously have no loyalty to the people of the state.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

My understanding is the anti-Federalists didn't like the idea of potential federal control of the militia, so they wanted to weaken the militia clause and strengthen the gun clause. The Federalists wanted the militia clause to be first and foremost, since depending upon who you ask, the militia is the free state.

I already understood the anti-federalists logic – I sympathize given the time period. Their fears, however, were ignored by 1791 because their idea sucked in practice.

Originally Posted by subego 

After they duked it out, we got two tons of shit in a one pound bag. The militia part is first, but it's meaning has been pretty well muddled by the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalist protections are clearly elucidated, but placed such they can be interpreted as subordinate to the militia.

I feel like this leaves me no better than where we started. Did both parties believe in unrestricted gun ownership? Is the debate today just an evolved division of 250 years ago?

[subego]

Reading between the lines, I'd say no.

The anti-Federalists were. The Federalists were for the militia.

[The Final Dakar]

Bill of Rights 1689 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law

This would imply to me that citizens have a universal right to guns. However the phrase "as allowed by law" strikes me as a gaping loophole.

[subego]

And class.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Reading between the lines, I'd say no.

The anti-Federalists were. The Federalists were for the militia.

So you're saying the Federalists were for limiting gun ownership to militia members?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

And class.

I read that as "within their means" or, what they could afford, but what the hell do I know, really.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I read that as "within their means" or, what they could afford, but what the hell do I know, really.

Same thing.

"You're too poor to own this weapon, we must confiscate it."

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So you're saying the Federalists were for limiting gun ownership to militia members?

I fully admit, I'm a little less in tune with the Federalist stance on this.

The way I would phrase it is they weren't necessarily for the limits, they just weren't as interested in throwing up such an aggressive roadblock to the possibility in the future.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I fully admit, I'm a little less in tune with the Federalist stance on this.

The way I would phrase it is they weren't necessarily for the limits, they just weren't as interested in throwing up such an aggressive roadblock to the possibility in the future.

Fair enough, I would find any claim of being in their head a little unbelievable anyway. Else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Same thing.

"You're too poor to own this weapon, we must confiscate it."

That doesn't make sense to me, but I guess that's the point.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

An interesting info-graphic from AAAAAH


14 day waiting period for all hammers. Transfer fees for all auto and semi auto hammers (jack hammers)

Is the ability to make awful analogies somehow a prerequisite of the gun control debate or something?

Cars are designed to transfer people vast distances, Hammers have hundreds of applications in construction, guns are machines that have perfected the art of killing living things, it is the only reason they exist.

Stop. Making. Terrible. Analogies.

[Spheric Harlot]

Thank you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That doesn't make sense to me, but I guess that's the point.

I'm saying it implies the government gets to decide if a particular weapon is "within your means".

[subego]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Stop. Making. Terrible. Analogies.

This would work better in infographic format.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Stop. Making. Terrible. Analogies.

If only that poser was an analogy. Maybe then I'd understand your pain.

[sek929]

Analogy "is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target)"

[subego]

Chongo's analogy is like _________.

[Spheric Harlot]

...shit.

[subego]

Spheric's analogy is, like, not very creative, yo.

C'mon, this is a softball. Hit it out of the park.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by sek929 

on, guns are machines that have perfected the art of killing living things, it is the only reason they exist.

I don't think that's a fair statement. For 99.9% of Americans, the main purpose of owning a gun is to deter and provide means of self-defense.

And then there's the 0.01% of idiots that use hammers to kill people. Or guns. Whatever they get their hands on.

-t

[sek929]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't think that's a fair statement. For 99.9% of Americans, the main purpose of owning a gun is to deter and provide means of self-defense.

How is a gun a deterrent?

Why that's because it's an incredibly efficient means of killing something, thank you for proving my point. Guns are lethal machines, distilled for efficiency over time, able to be wielded by most anyone and capable of extinguishing life with ease. That's the point, that's why they exist. Why must we beat around the bush to no end?

[ghporter]

A gun is a deterrent because no criminal is going to purposely attack an armed person when an unarmed person is a so much easier target. With gun ownership in the general population, but not universal, the criminal doesn't know who is armed or not, which appears to have the effect of reducing crimes against individuals (based in stats in states when and where concealed carry was implemented).

[Phileas]

Sorry Glen, but that's nothing but conjecture and speculation.

[Shaddim]

No, it's common sense, which coincidentally, is becoming more and more uncommon.

[Spheric Harlot]

If it's the kind that dictates that more instruments of death in the hands the public result in higher public safety, I'm all for it becoming more uncommon, because it ain't calibrated to reality.

[Shaddim]

Sure, we should outlaw firearms, that way the 275 million existing weapons in this country will only be in the hands of criminals and gangs (who already ignore existing gun laws). That's a wonderful idea. I'm sure they'll just give them up is someone asks nicely...

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by sek929 

That's the point, that's why they exist. Why must we beat around the bush to no end?

Because it gives gun control advocates a leg to stand on.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Sure, we should outlaw firearms, that way the 275 million existing weapons in this country will only be in the hands of criminals and gangs (who already ignore existing gun laws). That's a wonderful idea. I'm sure they'll just give them up is someone asks nicely...

Did someone even suggest this on this page? Call me crazy, but I expect better than a strawman argument from you. I'm pretty sure there's a middle ground between where we are and a full-on gun ban.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by sek929 

How is a gun a deterrent?

Why that's because it's an incredibly efficient means of killing something, thank you for proving my point. Guns are lethal machines, distilled for efficiency over time, able to be wielded by most anyone and capable of extinguishing life with ease. That's the point, that's why they exist. Why must we beat around the bush to no end?

So, I can infer that you are for the complete disbandment of all militaries, armed services, armed police officers and nuclear weapons in the US? I mean, their only purpose is to wage war and kill people, right...distilled for efficiency over time and able to be wielded for mass murder, correct?

That's where we end up following your logic to it's conclusion.

[The Final Dakar]

How is it people involved from the first gun threads since Newtown are making incredibly facile arguments anew?!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So, I can infer that you are for the complete disbandment of all militaries, armed services, armed police officers and nuclear weapons in the US? I mean, their only purpose is to wage war and kill people, right...distilled for efficiency over time and able to be wielded for mass murder, correct?

That's where we end up following your logic to it's conclusion.

I don't think that's his logic.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't think that's his logic.

Could you try to explain how we don't end up there following his logic? Am i missing something?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How is it people involved from the first gun threads since Newtown are making incredibly facile arguments anew?!

Because we are facing incredibly facile arguments from the proponents of gun control. Dakar, that post came off particularly trollish. I'm not sure we'll ever get past such facile arguments if you don't at least respect those who see it differently than you. You've also been around long enough to know what to expect from who.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Could you try to explain how we don't end up there following his logic? Am i missing something?

Seemed to me it was a simple statement of fact.

Guns are a deterrent due to their effectiveness as killing machines.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by sek929 

How is a gun a deterrent?

Why that's because it's an incredibly efficient means of killing something, thank you for proving my point. Guns are lethal machines, distilled for efficiency over time, able to be wielded by most anyone and capable of extinguishing life with ease. That's the point, that's why they exist. Why must we beat around the bush to no end?

Because there are people that confuse function with intent. That think that guns are the only way to kill people. That don't believe in causality.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Seemed to me it was a simple statement of fact.

Guns are a deterrent due to their effectiveness as killing machines.

I'm not seeing the connection towards why they should be banned/controlled then...am I inferring too much? They serve a purpose beyond killing things.

[subego]

I'm going to risk speaking for sek and say if he has a position on banning/regulating, he didn't put it in that post.

I'm not for much regulation, and I take no issue with his statement.


Edit: sorry sek, if I blew it on that one.

[subego]

I also should throw in there, even though I don't support much regulation, I certainly agree with the claim if you have less guns, you'll have less deaths by guns.

With freedom comes risk.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So, I can infer that you are for the complete disbandment of all militaries, armed services, armed police officers and nuclear weapons in the US? I mean, their only purpose is to wage war and kill people, right...distilled for efficiency over time and able to be wielded for mass murder, correct?

That's where we end up following your logic to it's conclusion.

Thats where you end up if you enjoy making a metric ass-ton of assumptions about my intent. My logic is simply guns were made and developed to kill things, it is their reason for existing. It's not my fault you went off the rails.

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Because there are people that confuse function with intent. That think that guns are the only way to kill people. That don't believe in causality.

It's good that I never said anything of the sort. If any individual wanted to he/she would find it rather easy to kill people with just about anything.

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm going to risk speaking for sek and say if he has a position on banning/regulating, he didn't put it in that post.

At least someone is paying attention.

This has perfectly illustrated why I volunteered for a PWL ban. No-one addresses the points I was actually making. Instead everyone goes off on tangents and lampoons me for things I never said, and positions I never stated.

I have close friends who own guns, shit, Snow-i I was in your rifle thread participating as someone who is not anti-gun. Yet I bring up some glaring bullshit that the pro-gun crowd always trots out, and lookout! I'm now in favor of disarming the military. It would be funny if it weren't so damn ridiculous.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

A gun is a deterrent because no criminal is going to purposely attack an armed person when an unarmed person is a so much easier target. With gun ownership in the general population, but not universal, the criminal doesn't know who is armed or not, which appears to have the effect of reducing crimes against individuals (based in stats in states when and where concealed carry was implemented).

I repeat, correlation does not equal causation. Crime is down everywhere, more people than ever eat McDonalds. Crime is down everywhere, more people drive Hondas than ever before. The reason for the decrease in violent crime cannot be attributed to one factor.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, it's common sense, which coincidentally, is becoming more and more uncommon.

No, it's not common sense, it's a jump to conclusion and absolutely brimmed with confirmation bias. "I support CC, and crime is down while CC is on the rise. It must be true!"

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Did someone even suggest this on this page? Call me crazy, but I expect better than a strawman argument from you. I'm pretty sure there's a middle ground between where we are and a full-on gun ban

Illustrates my frustrations perfectly. I support gun ownership. If you feel the need to buy a gun to protect yourself, knock yourself out. Don't try and tell me it's making the world a better place, upholding Patriotic duties, or that guns and knives/cars/hammers are the same thing. Yet I bring up perfectly cromulent points and what happens "ZOMG, you hate guns and want to disarm everyone!!!!"

It must be exhausting holding such staunch black and white views all the time. I suppose it makes things easier because you don't have to think that maybe, just maybe, some of your long-hel beliefs have just a whiff of bullshit to them.

[sek929]

I'm going to make a little cheat sheet for anyone who replies.

Sek929's gun beliefs:

•Guns are just fine, and I acknowledge that 99% of all gun owners are responsible.
•Banning things that are largely aesthetic and larger clips etc.. are mainly feel good bills that do not address any real problems.
•Owning a gun out of the thought of needing it to eventually save your own life, while understandable, seems like paranoia to me.
•Guns are in a class by themselves, and any comparison to objects and devices that were created for other things is disingenuous.
•I grew up in a large extended family, my grandfather fought in the Pacific during WW2, no-one in my family has felt the need to own weapons and no-one in my family has ever regretted that decision.
•If the majority of gun owners are good people, then the majority of the rest can go through life never needing a gun.
•I do not believe that our current gun owning population qualifies as a well regulated militia, and would like the flimsy 2nd Amendment pretext to be dropped when it comes to private firearm ownership. If this gets you riled up please refer to bullet-point #1.
•If I were to own a gun, it would be a Winchester 1886 Lever-Action repeater. It would be used to shoot at targets and I would never consider a firearm for personal protection, unless I were absolutely convinced my life was actively in danger by not doing so.

You've been a great audience.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Because there are people that confuse function with intent. That think that guns are the only way to kill people. That don't believe in causality.

No. Seems some gun owners don't want to admit a quality such as efficiency exists.

Originally Posted by subego 

I also should throw in there, even though I don't support much regulation, I certainly agree with the claim if you have less guns, you'll have less deaths by guns.

With freedom comes risk.

I can't say I'm ok with this per se, but debate has degraded to such a level that it's refreshing to hear someone admit their support of the second is philosophical and has real consequences.

In a country where extended background checks are somehow a bridge too far, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that admitting guns are much deadlier than knives and pressure cookers is just too much to ask.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I can't say I'm ok with this per se, but debate has degraded to such a level that it's refreshing to hear someone admit their support of the second is philosophical and has real consequences.

I'm going to blow your mind then.

I'm actually ok with you not being ok with it per se.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm going to blow your mind then.

I'm actually ok with you not being ok with it per se.

That comment lost its context between reading your post and responding to it.

You post delights me, because you're willing to admit the data suggests less guns = less deaths. I find this so refreshing and rare, it overshadows that I may not like your overall stance.

[subego]

I'm okay with the fact you may not like my overall stance.

Besides, I don't like your overall face.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm okay with the fact you may not like my overall stance.

Besides, I don't like your overall face.

I knew you were a Face control supporter.

[subego]

Typical. Put words in my mouth.

With faces come risk.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That comment lost its context between reading your post and responding to it.

You post delights me, because you're willing to admit the data suggests less guns = less deaths. I find this so refreshing and rare, it overshadows that I may not like your overall stance.

Don't think I haven't noticed a certain unwillingness to think of guns as, well... guns.

Likewise, in terms of self-defense, the only people I've seen who need a gun for self-defense are either poor, or government workers assigned to poor people*.

There are plenty of places where you don't need a gun. If you really care about your safety, and aren't poor, you need to move to one of those places. I've never felt like I needed a gun, and wouldn't want to be someplace I did, even though I actually like the things.


*There is a size/gender factor. As lower hanging fruit, the boundaries of "poor" in this respect are larger.