Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

View Poll Results: Banning of Assault Weapons?

Voters
11. This poll is closed
  • support

    1 9.09%
  • semi-support (specifics below)

    3 27.27%
  • againist

    7 63.64%
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 113
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Binghamton, NY, United States
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Question Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    do you think the US should have a nationwide ban on assault weapons (all autos, explosives, most *if not all* semi autos, most handguns, and 50 cal rifles)? vote and debate! (Note: This ONLY applies the the AWB: not background checks, mag limits, etc. also, just because this isn't the OFFICIAL AWB doesn't mean it isn't next)

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    I support the principle that there is a rage of weaponry that should only be licensed for specific purposes and in a controlled manner such that the weapons are identified, registered, and licensed.

    Exactly what that range of weaponry is, is not something that has easy answers and has to be hashed out. Certainly many of the current assault weapon designations are useless and silly so I don't blanket support the existing or prior policy.

    I developed a principle that for general use, a weapon should not be more dangerous to the general public than it is useful for self defense. Thus if a weapon trait can be found to be not more useful for self defense than another alternative, yet poses a greater danger to the public, it should be in the special controlled category.

    For instance a large magazine full auto grenade launcher is pretty useless for self defense, and posses a huge danger to the general public when used for self defense. On the other hand a good semi-auto pistol is quite lethal, but it is also an effective self defense tool. Those are the easy calls. In between are many harder ones.

    Generally you might say I favor weapons that are precise killers over those that are spray and pray oriented. Personally I don't own any firearms nor feel any need to. But it is part of the constitution and there are many legitimate reasons to own a weapon. I am all about measuring risk vs utility.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    I've never supported any ban and never will.

    What have the bans done? Well explosives are legal and with the correct permit and enough money you can fire them off. So people trying to use them just resort to crude means. It's not very difficult to turn say an m80 firework into a fragmentation grenade. Hot glue some nuts and bolts to it.

    Chicago had a handgun ban for a decade or two and it did nothing. It has a very strict registration process today and it's done nothing.

    Most of your average criminals are armed with whatever cheap black market pistols they can get their hands on. You won't see them sport Sig Sauers or AR 15s.

    The solution isn't registration or banning. Prohibition, marijuana, underage drinking. The only people affected by the law are the ones following it. Why are we punished?

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Witty puns...

  4. Likes LagerHead liked this post
  5. #4
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,263
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I support the principle that there is a rage of weaponry that should only be licensed for specific purposes and in a controlled manner such that the weapons are identified, registered, and licensed.
    The idea is, imo, pretty self defeating. The exact same group determining what is necessary and what is not, granting the licenses and enforcing them is the group that the weapons are potentially being obtained to defend against.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. Likes LagerHead, MindTrap028 liked this post
  7. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    do you think the US should have a nationwide ban on assault weapons (all autos, explosives, most *if not all* semi autos, most handguns, and 50 cal rifles)? vote and debate! (Note: This ONLY applies the the AWB: not background checks, mag limits, etc. also, just because this isn't the OFFICIAL AWB doesn't mean it isn't next)
    I do not support useless laws that can not possibly achieve what it seeks. In this case not that it seeks to limit weapons, but that it seeks to limit violence.
    There is no evidence that it is 1) Effective 2)Necessary 3) Can even be implemented effectively.

    I do not support laws that violate the const. Citizens have every right to a 50 cal rifle, or a fully auto AR-15. As Squatch said (alluded to), one of the fundamental reasons for having such a thing is to guard against a tyrannical gov. In the end it is the Gov who argue that the people are too dangerous to have such weapons, when in fact the Gov presents an inherent danger that is too great for them NOT to have access to such weapons. The worst a single person can do is kill people in the double digits, maybe triple if he is highly trained. The gov on the other hand can kill people by the millions. (And gov have in the past). People separate our gov from every other gov, when in fact they are the same KIND of thing. That is.. as our founders put it "A fire". By their nature they will grow, and consume and collect power.

    Finally, such weapons are NECESSARY if we want to exercise our right to overthrow a gov that does not represent the people. To git rid of the tools is to say that we will NEVER need to exercise that right. Which IMO is naive and ignorant of history.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  8. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The idea is, imo, pretty self defeating. The exact same group determining what is necessary and what is not, granting the licenses and enforcing them is the group that the weapons are potentially being obtained to defend against.
    You mean we the people, ya I suppose I agree with that.

    We are our government, its made of people, it's soilent green. If we are rotten it will be rotten, if we strive for greatness it will strive for greatness. If we think we have to fight it and keep it separate, it will never be under our control and will forever be fighting us.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  9. #7
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,263
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You mean we the people, ya I suppose I agree with that.
    Ha, expect bureaucrats, who determine rules such as these, aren't "we the people" or in my experience, are accountable to "we the people." Bureaucracies largely exist of their own momentum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    We are our government, its made of people, it's soilent green. If we are rotten it will be rotten, if we strive for greatness it will strive for greatness. If we think we have to fight it and keep it separate, it will never be under our control and will forever be fighting us.
    Platitudes aside does that mean that we the people agreed that the IRS should target some people more than others? Does that mean that any action the government takes, simply because we have a democratic republic, is therefore just?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    Bureaucrats are both people and citizens. We pay them, the people we elect employ them. I agree they are indirectly accountable but its not like you are going to take your gun and shoot them either. An Uzzi will not get you better department heads at the DMV.

    Actually, we the people did decide that. It tends to be that we don't like wasting our money so we target those most likely to commit tax fraud by creating arrhythmical to weight who we audit and who we don't. If you fill out the 1040 EX every year its unlikely you get audited, but if you file a lot of home use business deductions the odds go up a bit. If you have a huge company with lots and lots of deductions and such, then the odds go up some more.

    "Tea Party" is not at all a legitimate filter and its quite clear that very few people want to try and justify that. Democracy and representation are not grantees someone doesn't break the rules, but when we find out about it there is hell to pay. Even many liberals are outraged by this event. No one wants the IRS coming after you for your political views.

    But how exactly is a gun going to solve a problem like this? That is for when the state cannot or will not answer to the people, and that hasn't happened yet, nor if we are vigilant will it happen.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  11. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Binghamton, NY, United States
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    thank you everyone so far who have said their opinions. i am happy i am not the only one who seems to care a lot about this issue and am not a politician or alex jones.

  12. #10
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    I'm leaning toward banning them... at least in cities. Personally, I could care less what most people do. It is when their actions might adversely affect others that I get concerned. Someone using one of these for protection in the city I think would have a much greater chance of causing collateral damage than someone way outside the city limits doing it. I might be okay with them in the city also though if people were required to know how to use them properly. However, they aren't.

  13. Likes LagerHead liked this post
  14. #11
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I support the principle that there is a rage of weaponry that should only be licensed for specific purposes and in a controlled manner such that the weapons are identified, registered, and licensed.

    Exactly what that range of weaponry is, is not something that has easy answers and has to be hashed out. Certainly many of the current assault weapon designations are useless and silly so I don't blanket support the existing or prior policy.

    I developed a principle that for general use, a weapon should not be more dangerous to the general public than it is useful for self defense. Thus if a weapon trait can be found to be not more useful for self defense than another alternative, yet poses a greater danger to the public, it should be in the special controlled category.
    The problem is, as mentioned above, that the people making the determinations are hardly the people we want determining who should and shouldn't have the means to prevent oppression and tyranny at their disposal, especially since our politicians at the city, state, and Federal levels, including Congress and the Executive have a nasty recent habit of exempting themselves from the laws they impose on the rest of us (read: Social Security, Obamacare, "may issue" concealed carry (c.f. New York City), and other such unequal applications of the law). It's a fundamental conflict of interest, and it's one that has demonstrably shaped both policy and its unjust implementation since the inception of the bans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You mean we the people, ya I suppose I agree with that.

    We are our government, its made of people, it's soilent green. If we are rotten it will be rotten, if we strive for greatness it will strive for greatness. If we think we have to fight it and keep it separate, it will never be under our control and will forever be fighting us.
    The problem with this line is that the politicians we elect are basically the lesser of two evils and have been for a long time. It's like "Chthulu ping pong" to choose between two essentially aligned parties that simply take different tacks when attacking our liberties. These same politicians - the ones who routinely exempt themselves from the most oppressive and broken of laws that they impose on the rest of us - use all sorts of advantages of their offices to ensure that they retain those offices, making a truly representative Republic difficult to achieve. Why should I trust them to decide what sort of weapons I need for *any* purpose, be it self defense or deterring unwanted interference from increasingly meddlesome governmental agencies who are always deciding that more and more personal parts of my life are suddenly their business?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    "Tea Party" is not at all a legitimate filter and its quite clear that very few people want to try and justify that. Democracy and representation are not grantees someone doesn't break the rules, but when we find out about it there is hell to pay. Even many liberals are outraged by this event. No one wants the IRS coming after you for your political views.
    And yet, the White House is still keeping mum except for vague platitudes about their opposition to the general principle of the thing "if" it, indeed, actually happened. They certainly don't seem in much of a hurry to do anything except let one official go who was going to quit next week anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    But how exactly is a gun going to solve a problem like this? That is for when the state cannot or will not answer to the people, and that hasn't happened yet, nor if we are vigilant will it happen.
    Well, in case you didn't know, the IRS does employ riot gear-clad, jack-booted thugs with guns to break down the doors of innocent citizens in the middle of the night to arrest them. There are numerous accounts of this very thing happening. All I have to say is that where I am from, that kind of thing wouldn't fly without at least one or two of them getting a face full of lead.

    The purpose of having firearms is not purely for self-defense. It's for deterring the very kind of behavior that we have seen out of the IRS and other governmental agencies. It's about deterring the police's blatant violation of the 4th Amendment in Boston for their ineffectual hunt for Dzokhar Tsarnaev which had already failed to spot the killer despite all of their violations of the citizenry's rights except for one observant citizen's tip. If they had had a properly vigilant population as some portions of the South have, those police would have been marching up to the doors to knock politely, lest they be given a lesson in respecting our liberties, courtesy of Smith and Wesson. That's as it should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    I'm leaning toward banning them... at least in cities. Personally, I could care less what most people do. It is when their actions might adversely affect others that I get concerned. Someone using one of these for protection in the city I think would have a much greater chance of causing collateral damage than someone way outside the city limits doing it. I might be okay with them in the city also though if people were required to know how to use them properly. However, they aren't.
    What goal would you have for making such a ban? What evidence do you have that a ban on assault weapons in cities would be effective at achieving that goal?
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  15. #12
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    What goal would you have for making such a ban? What evidence do you have that a ban on assault weapons in cities would be effective at achieving that goal?
    The goal would be safety of others. I don't really see a need to provide evidence for such a statement. I think it is a given that more weapons equals potentially higher incidents involving those weapons. But if you really need some kind of common sense proof...

    1) Have we ever had an innocent person adversely affected by someone else's improper use of an assault weapon? Answer: yes.

    2) How often would that happen if there were no assault weapons? Answer: zero.

    Thus, a reduction in assault weapons can equal a reduction in improper use of those weapons... and an increase in public safety.

    All of that said, I think a better question would be whether the degree of safety obtained outweighs what you loose by banning them. To answer that question I think you would have to show what you gain by keeping them. To be honest, I can't think of a single thing gained that can't be obtained using standard weapons. So, unless you can come up with something then the answer is zero. We need look no further than somewhat recent headlines to find instances where a ban on assault weapons might have increased public safety. Even if safety would have only been increased by .00000001 percent it would have still been infinitely higher than zero. However, I suspect safety would have been increased significantly higher than that.

    All of that said, I'm not really an extremist when it comes to banning them. I'm just saying that if I was given the deciding vote I would probably vote to ban them in cities. Especially if we are going to hand them out to people that may not be properly trained on how to use/maintain them correctly.

  16. #13
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    Quote Originally Posted by SQUATCH
    Does that mean that any action the government takes, simply because we have a democratic republic, is therefore just?
    Not "just", but we should have expected it.. right?
    I mean, we put libs in charge.. should we really be suprised when we get people who act as liberals do and actually use the power of the gov
    against their enemies?

    So, I think we should associate the gov actions as what the Democrats stand for, and what people who vote for democrats want.
    IF, were are to equate the gov with the direct will of the people that is
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  17. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    The goal would be safety of others. I don't really see a need to provide evidence for such a statement. I think it is a given that more weapons equals potentially higher incidents involving those weapons. But if you really need some kind of common sense proof...

    1) Have we ever had an innocent person adversely affected by someone else's improper use of an assault weapon? Answer: yes.

    2) How often would that happen if there were no assault weapons? Answer: zero.

    Thus, a reduction in assault weapons can equal a reduction in improper use of those weapons... and an increase in public safety.

    All of that said, I think a better question would be whether the degree of safety obtained outweighs what you loose by banning them. To answer that question I think you would have to show what you gain by keeping them. To be honest, I can't think of a single thing gained that can't be obtained using standard weapons. So, unless you can come up with something then the answer is zero. We need look no further than somewhat recent headlines to find instances where a ban on assault weapons might have increased public safety. Even if safety would have only been increased by .00000001 percent it would have still been infinitely higher than zero. However, I suspect safety would have been increased significantly higher than that.

    All of that said, I'm not really an extremist when it comes to banning them. I'm just saying that if I was given the deciding vote I would probably vote to ban them in cities. Especially if we are going to hand them out to people that may not be properly trained on how to use/maintain them correctly.
    In response to number 1. Relevance? If you do a study on the use of firearms in crime you will find that a very small amount of crimes are committed using "assault" weapons. We can use the same logic and apply it to anything. Alcohol. Have we ever had someone hurt due to the misuse of alcohol? Yes. Is there any more justification for this poison over "assault" weapons?

    http://dui.lifetips.com/cat/61352/dr...ats/index.html

    Compare that to this

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay...th-is-suicide/

    Take the numbers as you like. Gun deaths would decrease because people wouldn't blow their brains out. Does that mean they wouldn't do it with another method?

    2. It would still happen because you can't eliminate the black market. Perhaps people will have fewer AR15s but pipe bombs aren't complicated to make and are even more lethal. Toss one in a congested group of people and you cab see the body count sky rocket.

    And finally no it wouldn't. It would simply mean people would find different methods to kill each other. Again most firearm homicides are committed with pistols so why would banning the least used weapon make a significant change?

    I hear your concerns but can't do anything but shrug them off. We've tried limiting and banning them and it's done nothing. Chicago did it with pistols and it did nothing.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Witty puns...

  18. Likes LagerHead liked this post
  19. #15
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    The goal would be safety of others.
    But you are starting with the assumption that your proposal would actually work to make people safer. The problem is that not only do the facts not bear out your conclusion, you don't even really make much of a pretense at critically examining your position before defending it with plain rhetoric and unsupported claims (which I will show to be false).

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    I don't really see a need to provide evidence for such a statement.
    Then you have totally misunderstood the nature of debate here at ODN, and I suggest you peruse the Rules page regarding support for claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    I think it is a given that more weapons equals potentially higher incidents involving those weapons.
    Your opinion on what constitutes "a given" is not relevant to the facts of the situation. Clearly, if it were really "a given," we wouldn't be having this discussion because it would be truly self-evident. The fact that there are people making arguments with reasonable and supported points to contradict yours indicates that your position is anything but self-evident.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    But if you really need some kind of common sense proof...
    I'll be the judge of what's "common sense" to me. So far, I've seen little or none.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    1) Have we ever had an innocent person adversely affected by someone else's improper use of an assault weapon? Answer: yes.
    We have also had innocent people adversely affected by someone else's improper use of automobiles, knives, fire, and a host of other things that are perfectly legal and aren't being discussed for the potential to be banned. This is a totally irrelevant point.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    2) How often would that happen if there were no assault weapons? Answer: zero.
    There are several problems with this point. First, the practical reality of totally eradicating firearms that you might arbitrarily designate as "assault weapons" (which are really just normal long-arms that have "scary-looking" attachments but are otherwise pretty unremarkable firearms) is virtually negligible in this country to the point where discussing this hypothetical is a waste of time. Even if you were able to push through a ban, history shows quite clearly that bans are ineffective at keeping criminals from getting their hands on such weapons and at reducing the amount of violent crime caused by firearms. We did it before, and it didn't work. There's no evidence to support the contention that it would work now.

    Second, if there were no cars, people wouldn't be run over or die in car accidents, either. If there were no alcohol, nobody would die from alcohol poisoning or alcoholic cirrhosis or kill others by driving drunk. It doesn't mean that we should go around banning things because it *might* prevent harm to one or two people.

    Third, the number of crimes committed with so-called "assault rifles" is dwarfed by the crimes committed with handguns and more accessible firearms. The total number of crimes involving a firearm in 2011 was over 6,000. Of these, only 323 were committed with a rifle of *any* sort, and even fewer with a so-called "assault rifle."

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    Thus, a reduction in assault weapons can equal a reduction in improper use of those weapons... and an increase in public safety.
    I think I've thoroughly rebutted this assertion and request either your retraction or a counterargument supported with actual facts instead of unsupported rhetoric.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    All of that said, I think a better question would be whether the degree of safety obtained outweighs what you loose by banning them. To answer that question I think you would have to show what you gain by keeping them. To be honest, I can't think of a single thing gained that can't be obtained using standard weapons. So, unless you can come up with something then the answer is zero.
    First of all, the laws of this country don't rely on the assumption that we must justify an inherent right with what you or anyone else arbitrarily decides is a "good reason." Since you have *not* demonstrated any reason to assume that there would be an increase in public safety from banning so-called "assault weapons," you don't even have a pretense at a "good reason." Thus, your argument starts out without any merit just on the facts alone and how they relate to the laws of this country.

    Second, your lack of imagination doesn't constitute an effective counterargument. Simply because *you* "can't think of a single thing" to be gained by not banning assault weapons doesn't mean I can't. I can think of a lot of good things. We'll start with a reliable, safe, effective means of home-defense. Let's continue with a light-weight, effective hunting rifle. Let's go further and imagine that every able-bodied man has an AR-15 with 1,000 rounds of ammunition in their homes and knows how to use it. Now, we've got the "rifle behind every blade of grass" that the Japanese apocryphally feared when they considered invasion and rejected the notion. I think I've clearly demonstrated that your lack of imagination is in no way helpful to making your case to ban assault rifles.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    We need look no further than somewhat recent headlines to find instances where a ban on assault weapons might have increased public safety. Even if safety would have only been increased by .00000001 percent it would have still been infinitely higher than zero. However, I suspect safety would have been increased significantly higher than that.
    The evidence is clear - and generally agreed upon, even by most people in Washington - that the proposed ban on so-called "assault weapons" would have done nothing to stop any of the crimes that have occurred within the last 6 months. Thus, your suspicions are unfounded in reality. Furthermore, the argument that "if it saves even one person" is not a sufficient justification to impose upon the rights of every American citizen, especially with measures that have already been proven ineffective. If you apply the "just one person" argument to its logical conclusion, we need to ban cars, alcohol, matches, knives, and anything else that might even be remotely dangerous to anyone, at any time, ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    All of that said, I'm not really an extremist when it comes to banning them. I'm just saying that if I was given the deciding vote I would probably vote to ban them in cities. Especially if we are going to hand them out to people that may not be properly trained on how to use/maintain them correctly.
    Well... banning them "just in the cities" won't do any good, because even if you could get such an unbalanced, unconstitutional law passed, all people will have to do to get them into cities is go somewhere else and bring their legally bought weapons into the city. Also, nobody's "hand[ing] them out" to anybody, last time I checked. A rifle is a relatively expensive piece of equipment designed to be used by a trained person to hit targets at mid to long ranges. Why would anybody "hand them out" to anyone?

    Please include actual facts in your rebuttal instead of opinions based in no way upon reality.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  20. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  21. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    The problem is, as mentioned above, that the people making the determinations are hardly the people we want determining who should and shouldn't have the means to prevent oppression and tyranny at their disposal, especially since our politicians at the city, state, and Federal levels, including Congress and the Executive have a nasty recent habit of exempting themselves from the laws they impose on the rest of us (read: Social Security, Obamacare, "may issue" concealed carry (c.f. New York City), and other such unequal applications of the law). It's a fundamental conflict of interest, and it's one that has demonstrably shaped both policy and its unjust implementation since the inception of the bans.
    I trust them as much as any other human beings. Now there are certain things I expect from politicians due to the nature of their jobs, but overall their intentions tend to be no worse than anyone else. As to them being exempt from their own laws, that is almost patently false. There are a few exceptions based on national security and the like, but our leaders pay into and can draw from social security like anyone else. They are subject to Obamacare like anyone else. Not sure about new york guns but if you got that info from the same ones that lied to you about the other two, well its probably wrong as well.

    The problem with this line is that the politicians we elect are basically the lesser of two evils and have been for a long time. It's like "Chthulu ping pong" to choose between two essentially aligned parties that simply take different tacks when attacking our liberties.
    They are essentially aligned with the American public. No one stops us from voting libertarian or constitution party, or greens, or american socialists. We don't because most Americans are pretty middle of the road, mildly liberal or conservative capitalists with moderate religious views and mostly economic interests. The popular parties work hard to stay right in the zone of what is generally popular. That is the sad and not exciting truth. Neither does anything terribly evil that I can tell. Its mostly just business as usual.

    Why should I trust them to decide what sort of weapons I need for *any* purpose, be it self defense or deterring unwanted interference from increasingly meddlesome governmental agencies who are always deciding that more and more personal parts of my life are suddenly their business?
    Why trust them to defend the nations borders? Why trust them to administer the courts? Why trust them at all with anything? You either have to come to terms with the society you are in, figure out how to change it, or find one that better suits you. For some reason many Americans think fire arms are sacred. They are tools for killing and occasionally toys for play. Important, but hardly the most important part of our social organization.

    And yet, the White House is still keeping mum except for vague platitudes about their opposition to the general principle of the thing "if" it, indeed, actually happened. They certainly don't seem in much of a hurry to do anything except let one official go who was going to quit next week anyway.
    If you were president what would you do?

    Well, in case you didn't know, the IRS does employ riot gear-clad, jack-booted thugs with guns to break down the doors of innocent citizens in the middle of the night to arrest them. There are numerous accounts of this very thing happening. All I have to say is that where I am from, that kind of thing wouldn't fly without at least one or two of them getting a face full of lead.
    Like when? The IRS doesn't have any security forces. The only time Swat is coming for you is if you are a fugitive of the law. Now the FBI, they can come down on you like a ton of bricks and sometimes do.

    The purpose of having firearms is not purely for self-defense. It's for deterring the very kind of behavior that we have seen out of the IRS and other governmental agencies. It's about deterring the police's blatant violation of the 4th Amendment in Boston for their ineffectual hunt for Dzokhar Tsarnaev which had already failed to spot the killer despite all of their violations of the citizenry's rights except for one observant citizen's tip. If they had had a properly vigilant population as some portions of the South have, those police would have been marching up to the doors to knock politely, lest they be given a lesson in respecting our liberties, courtesy of Smith and Wesson. That's as it should be.
    So tell me Talthas, do you feel like this deterrent of yours is working? Judging by your opinion of the government it seems like its having no affect what so ever ad discouraging them from doing whatever dastardly deed they choose to.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  22. #17
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I trust them as much as any other human beings. Now there are certain things I expect from politicians due to the nature of their jobs, but overall their intentions tend to be no worse than anyone else.
    Then you are more charitable than I am toward our politicians. I don't think your personal opinion as to their trustworthiness should dictate my personal rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    As to them being exempt from their own laws, that is almost patently false. There are a few exceptions based on national security and the like, but our leaders pay into and can draw from social security like anyone else.
    Well, for a start, every person elected to Congress who serves any reasonable length of time receives an annuity only slightly less than their pay for being a member of Congress for the rest of their lives. It renders social security irrelevant. Until the 1980's, they *were* exempt from Social Security and didn't pay into it anymore because they did have a separate retirement program. Second, it's not uncommon for them to use inside information to profit after they leave office by investing in businesses based on who's more or less regulated by what laws they passed or go into highly paid lobbyist or executive jobs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    They are subject to Obamacare like anyone else.
    Actually, this isn't true. Congress has its own health exchanges that they participate in, and they are not in any way related to the state exchanges that everyone else will be forced to participate in when they can't afford private insurance anymore. Also, they're Cadillac plans that are pretty much all-expenses paid. As a point of fact, the Republicans tried to get a measure put into the bill that forced Congress to use the same rules that they were about to impose on everyone else, and the Democrats refused to allow it into the bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    Not sure about new york guns but if you got that info from the same ones that lied to you about the other two, well its probably wrong as well.
    Well, while nobody lied to me about anything (and thanks for being so condescending as to assume I was being lied to and unaware of it)... you're engaging in a fallacy even if I *was* being lied to.

    Second, the laws of New York City make owning a handgun strictly legal but practically impossible unless you a) have connections with people in the city government who will expedite your paperwork or b) have the money to bypass the process through other means. The average person who wants a gun basically can't ever find enough "good reason" to justify the issuance of a handgun permit from the city government, and since New York is a "may issue" state, the option is with the government and the onus is on the person making the application to demonstrate "good reason" to "need" a gun. The net result is that only criminals, the wealthy or the well-connected have handguns in New York City, which has one of the highest rates of violent crime and handgun crime in the nation.... because the politicians exempted themselves from the laws they imposed on other people, for all practical intents and purposes.

    Your bias is showing, Sig... you're assuming what you don't like to be false when you have no reason to suspect it except your own personal opinion. I'm basing my arguments on facts... what are you basing yours on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    They are essentially aligned with the American public. No one stops us from voting libertarian or constitution party, or greens, or american socialists. We don't because most Americans are pretty middle of the road, mildly liberal or conservative capitalists with moderate religious views and mostly economic interests. The popular parties work hard to stay right in the zone of what is generally popular. That is the sad and not exciting truth. Neither does anything terribly evil that I can tell. Its mostly just business as usual.
    No... the parties use the politics of fear to convince people that voting with some party that is not "us" or "them" is essentially 'throwing their vote away' because 'the vote is wasted on someone who doesn't have a chance.' It's not because the parties "align with the American public." Congressional approval is at virtually an all time low and has been for several years. Roughly half as many people believe that Elvis is still alive as approve of Congress. Fewer than 1/3 of the population surveyed believes that the US government is operating "with the consent of the governed." That is *not* a government who "aligns with the American public." That is a government that is the result of an increasingly apathetic and disengaged voting public who feel increasingly powerless to affect government because they are choosing the "lesser of two evils" at every election and increasingly give up instead of voting (i.e. 2012 elections). The "popular parties" work hard to entrench themselves in power or to dislodge their ideological adversaries and to push forward their own ideas of which rights are more expendable than the others. "Business as usual" is nothing but creeping and pervasive Statism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    If you were president what would you do?
    I wouldn't use the Federal government and its various organizations to target and punish my political and ideological adversaries, as our current Commander in Chief is clearly doing if you don't have blinders on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    Like when? The IRS doesn't have any security forces. The only time Swat is coming for you is if you are a fugitive of the law. Now the FBI, they can come down on you like a ton of bricks and sometimes do.
    Oh... sorry... it wasn't the IRS. It was the Department of Education. Granted, the DoE says that the home invasion for a person that wasn't even present in the house and led a man in his boxers handcuffed out of a house in front of his wife and pre-teen children (who were also put into a police car) in the middle of the night... was due to "student aid fraud and embezzlement of federal funds", but that's totally reasonable, I guess. Must have been a dangerous fugitive of the law, right?

    And the IRS is arming their agents like they're going to a drug war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    So tell me Talthas, do you feel like this deterrent of yours is working? Judging by your opinion of the government it seems like its having no affect what so ever ad discouraging them from doing whatever dastardly deed they choose to.
    Note: this happened in Boston, where the people are already disarmed... not in Virginia, Alabama, or Louisiana... where people are much better armed.
    Last edited by Talthas; May 24th, 2013 at 09:49 AM.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  23. #18
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,263
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Bureaucrats are both people and citizens. We pay them, the people we elect employ them. I agree they are indirectly accountable but its not like you are going to take your gun and shoot them either. An Uzzi will not get you better department heads at the DMV.
    I agree they are people, people with their own biases and beliefs. People that realize they can operate their sections with little repercussion from the voters. Most, if not all, of the time they are asking themselves, "what can I do with this authority to make the world a better place." The problem is that their vision of "better place" differs from other people's vision and they have the authority and ability to make their vision legally triumphant over mine. I agree with you that an Uzi will probably not get me a better department head at the DMV, but it might stop (or at least deter) the FDA from raiding my house to seize unpasteurized milk or some other overstepping of legal bounds done for "my best interest."

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    Actually, we the people did decide that. It tends to be that we don't like wasting our money so we target those most likely to commit tax fraud by creating arrhythmical to weight who we audit and who we don't.
    Except that was never a question put to the American people in any way, shape or form (and judging by our response it doesn't seem to be an accurate view). No one voted on it, it wasn't an issue discussed in any election I am aware of. More importantly there is absolutely no evidence that groups with Tea Party or Patriot in their name are more likely to commit tax fraud. Certainly no more than any sitting Democratic member of Congress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    "Tea Party" is not at all a legitimate filter and its quite clear that very few people want to try and justify that.
    Agreed, but there is certainly a small segment that did. More importantly they were able to implement that policy and suppress the evidence during an election cycle. It doesn't take many in a bureaucracy to violate rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    But how exactly is a gun going to solve a problem like this? That is for when the state cannot or will not answer to the people, and that hasn't happened yet, nor if we are vigilant will it happen.
    I'm not making the argument that the state is at that point yet. But because it is not there right now does not mean we shouldn't be allowed to defend ourselves when and if it does get there. That is the difference I think between the two positions. My position requires both sides to turn the key. The people must be desirous of defending a right and the government must be desirous of removing it. Without both those positions, nothing happens. The opposing side only requires the government to desire more power (not exactly an atypical position for a government), the people's desire to defend their rights is irrelevant because they cannot do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    I'm leaning toward banning them... at least in cities. Personally, I could care less what most people do. It is when their actions might adversely affect others that I get concerned. Someone using one of these for protection in the city I think would have a much greater chance of causing collateral damage than someone way outside the city limits doing it. I might be okay with them in the city also though if people were required to know how to use them properly. However, they aren't.
    Hmm, so Chicago (which has done so) is a model of excellence in your regard then?

    And doesn't banning them constitute an action that "adversely affects others?"

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not "just", but we should have expected it.. right?
    I mean, we put libs in charge.. should we really be suprised when we get people who act as liberals do and actually use the power of the gov
    against their enemies?

    So, I think we should associate the gov actions as what the Democrats stand for, and what people who vote for democrats want.
    IF, were are to equate the gov with the direct will of the people that is
    That goes to another question, do we as a corporate body have the ability to vote away someone's sovereignty? That does seem to be the Leftist position, they just want it selectively applied.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  24. #19
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    But you are starting with the assumption that your proposal would actually work to make people safer. The problem is that not only do the facts not bear out your conclusion, you don't even really make much of a pretense at critically examining your position before defending it with plain rhetoric and unsupported claims (which I will show to be false).
    What facts are you talking about? If you think you can claim there are facts that support your position and that you can just say they exist without actually providing them... well, you have totally misunderstood the nature of debate here at ODN... sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm not being serious... though you probably should provide some of these facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Then you have totally misunderstood the nature of debate here at ODN, and I suggest you peruse the Rules page regarding support for claims.
    I ask that you withdraw this statement. You took my comment out of context and in doing so may have implied that I broke some kind of rule here. What rule did I violate?

    Did I not follow the above quoted sentence with a legit logical argument/explanation? So, why did you pull just this one sentence out and make a comment about my understanding of the site? A comment that I now ask that you justify by showing me which rule I have violated or demonstrated a lack of understanding of.

    Because I'm looking in the rules and I see no rule that says I'm required to see/feel the need to explain every single detail I give. Heck, I don't even see a rule that says I'm required to explain every single detail even if I don't feel like it. All I see is that if you challenge me I'm required to give explanations. And from what I'm reading in another thread on this subject, it sounds like I might not be required to even do that. Yet, in the above case I DID explain my position despite not being required to do so. Therefore, I feel I'm not only following the rules but the spirit of the rules as well.

    ---------- Post added at 11:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    But you are starting with the assumption that your proposal would actually work to make people safer. The problem is that not only do the facts not bear out your conclusion, you don't even really make much of a pretense at critically examining your position before defending it with plain rhetoric and unsupported claims (which I will show to be false).

    Then you have totally misunderstood the nature of debate here at ODN, and I suggest you peruse the Rules page regarding support for claims.

    Your opinion on what constitutes "a given" is not relevant to the facts of the situation. Clearly, if it were really "a given," we wouldn't be having this discussion because it would be truly self-evident. The fact that there are people making arguments with reasonable and supported points to contradict yours indicates that your position is anything but self-evident.
    Again, why are you taking me out of context? What is wrong with me saying I feel something is a given... as long as I'm still willing to attempt to back it up anyway? My guess is that you probably can't think of anything wrong with that... which is why you had to take it out of context. Am I wrong? If not then please withdraw the comment. If so then please explain.

  25. #20
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Banning of "Assault Weapons": support or or against?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    What facts are you talking about? If you think you can claim there are facts that support your position and that you can just say they exist without actually providing them... well, you have totally misunderstood the nature of debate here at ODN... sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm not being serious... though you probably should provide some of these facts.
    Actually, I *did* provide quite a number of those facts I mentioned, if you'd actually read the rest of my post. Please re-read and come back with some further comments once you have.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    I ask that you withdraw this statement. You took my comment out of context and in doing so may have implied that I broke some kind of rule here. What rule did I violate?
    I patently refuse to withdraw any statement. First of all, you have misunderstood my meaning. I didn't say that you actually broke any rules. I was saying that if you really think you can just make unsupported claims and then say you see no need to present evidence in direct response to a request for evidence to support your claims, then you *have* misunderstood the rules here. That's not a statement against you... it's just the facts. It's also not a statement that you have actually broken a rule... unless you refuse to provide me with the evidence requested or withdraw or otherwise modify the statement in question.

    I'd really rather not have this degenerate into a semantic point about what you misunderstood about me talking about the rules. I promise you: if I think you're violating rules, you will know it because I will make it impossible to be mistaken about my opinion on the matter. Until then, you can safely assume that I am either reminding you of a point about how things work here or asking if that's really what you meant (because it might end up violating a rule at some point).

    Please let's get back to the point at hand
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

 

 
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Taking The Other Side-Assault Weapons Ban
    By DevilPup John in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: April 30th, 2011, 12:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •