I believe in Liberty

[♪alt13]

Hypothetical question...

Let's say we invented a gun which does not kill a person in anyway but it can entirely protect you or your home and make a person completely disable to harm you for a good amount of time. (like a much advanced version of a taser) It has all the necessary features like multiple firing and adequate range etc.

In this case, would you still call for the extensive freedom for current lethal guns? I'm asking this question because one of the main mainstays of the pro-gun crowd is self-defense.

BTW, I'm not stating my stand(which is irrelevant) on the subject in anyway, I'm just trying to understand the freedom concept when it's about the guns.

I actually believe you have a right to bear arms in order to defend your liberty. Unless your hypothetical gun can change the minds of a future totalitarian regime, I would say no. All Americans have the right and the duty to confront totalitarianism with deadly force.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I'm calling the way disputes are settled in black markets a type of anarchy. I know there are a few takes on what anarchy means, but by my basic understanding anarchy is a contradiction.

ofcourse humanity is not rady for anarchism.
the stupidy of humantiy is too great for now

 

[BTP]

Can't believe you guys turned that trollpost into a serious discussion

 

[One Brow]

That gun had never been used in a crime, yet it was easy to make the argument that no normal person should be allowed to own one because it is just too powerful.

Same goes for a rocket launcher. They aren't cheap, they are extremely conspicuous, they can't be used effectively in close quarters. What scenario do you imagine would take place if people were allowed to carry a rocket launcher. Certainly mayhem would ensue, right?

I'm not pretending that everyone would go around carrying rocket launchers, or even .50 caliber weapons. To me, that means 1) those who *are* carrying them around are not looking for the normal defensive purposes of a gun, and 2) restricting them is not a burden on the general populace. I'm not even sure you disagree with that. It sounds as though you are saying laws against carrying such things are not needed, but you have not said they are a restriction of some fundamental right.

As I said, my point was that, fundamentally, almost everyone agree you have a right to defend yourself, and almost everyone agrees there should be some limitations on what we allow people to carry around for this purpose. The notion that possession of a particular weapon in this effort is a fundamental right seems odd to me.

 

[One Brow]

Well of course your pro food stamps.

If I was getting something for free I would be all about it. I would try to resist and stand on principle, but free **** is cool.

I haven't used food stamps in about five years, but they were badly needed when I did use them. I'm relieved to know that you will never be poor or impoverished. I'm sad to find out that you don't care if people starve.

 

[Gameface]

I'm not pretending that everyone would go around carrying rocket launchers, or even .50 caliber weapons. To me, that means 1) those who *are* carrying them around are not looking for the normal defensive purposes of a gun, and 2) restricting them is not a burden on the general populace. I'm not even sure you disagree with that. It sounds as though you are saying laws against carrying such things are not needed, but you have not said they are a restriction of some fundamental right.

As I said, my point was that, fundamentally, almost everyone agree you have a right to defend yourself, and almost everyone agrees there should be some limitations on what we allow people to carry around for this purpose. The notion that possession of a particular weapon in this effort is a fundamental right seems odd to me.

A rocket launcher is classified as a destructive device. It cannot be used for personal defense because it causes indiscriminate damage. I wouldn't lose any sleep if a person couldn't carry one, but I see no reason to completely ban people from owning them, with the current licensing requirements in place. You pointed to these things as a no-brainer that some things should be restricted from the public. It was a wedge to eventually say well then military type rifles should be banned as well. Or am I wrong?

 

[One Brow]

A rocket launcher is classified as a destructive device. It cannot be used for personal defense because it causes indiscriminate damage. I wouldn't lose any sleep if a person couldn't carry one, but I see no reason to completely ban people from owning them, with the current licensing requirements in place. You pointed to these things as a no-brainer that some things should be restricted from the public. It was a wedge to eventually say well then military type rifles should be banned as well. Or am I wrong?

Again, I was speaking of carrying, not owning.

Are military rifles lighter that .50 calibers? Can they be concealed on a person? Can they be deployed more rapidly? Are they better for close quarters? I honestly don't know. Also, I'm not sure if you are worried about the the banning of ownership or the banning of carrying.

 

[Gameface]

Again, I was speaking of carrying, not owning.

Are military rifles lighter that .50 calibers? Can they be concealed on a person? Can they be deployed more rapidly? Are they better for close quarters? I honestly don't know. Also, I'm not sure if you are worried about the the banning of ownership or the banning of carrying.

I'm really not worried about either. Seems that we're not going to be getting any new gun restrictions anytime soon so I'm pretty relaxed on the issue.

I need to get TBS in here to explain what logical fallacy is taking place, but this is far too common. You're taking an object no one would carry around and saying we shouldn't allow people to carry it around as an example that we need limits. We also shouldn't let people run down the sidewalk at 50mph, they could hurt someone. Do you agree that we shouldn't allow people to run down the sidewalk at 50mph? I mean, we've got to draw the line somewhere, right?

 

[Bronco70]

Again, I was speaking of carrying, not owning.

Are military rifles lighter that .50 calibers? Can they be concealed on a person? Can they be deployed more rapidly? Are they better for close quarters? I honestly don't know. Also, I'm not sure if you are worried about the the banning of ownership or the banning of carrying.

GF has been nothing less than crystal clear with his point. You keep falling back to the same irrelevant questions. Looks to me like you're just trolling at this point.

 

[One Brow]

I need to get TBS in here to explain what logical fallacy is taking place, but this is far too common. You're taking an object no one would carry around

To be clear, I'm talking about an object no would carry around on a daily bases for the purposes of self-defense.

and saying we shouldn't allow people to carry it around as an example that we need limits. We also shouldn't let people run down the sidewalk at 50mph, they could hurt someone. Do you agree that we shouldn't allow people to run down the sidewalk at 50mph? I mean, we've got to draw the line somewhere, right?

How about bicyclists that go 20-30 mph? The existence of obvious, extreme examples serves to illustrate that one-size-fits-all answers usually don't.

 

[One Brow]

GF has been nothing less than crystal clear with his point. You keep falling back to the same irrelevant questions. Looks to me like you're just trolling at this point.

As far as I can tell, his point is, at best, orthogonal to my point, not in opposition to it. I agree that you can't base a case for banning guns on people carrying around grenade launchers; the machines are different enough that one does not effect the other. However, I was not trying to use that as the basis for a ban.

 

[♪alt13]

I haven't used food stamps in about five years, but they were badly needed when I did use them. I'm relieved to know that you will never be poor or impoverished. I'm sad to find out that you don't care if people starve.

I do Care. If people were starving I would happily throw potatoes at them.