Government Orders 7000 "Personal Defense Weapons."

[telling tiger 156]

Nope didn't miss it all.

Under the direction of the PTB, the RAF could've reduced Belfast, as an example, to a pile of rubble at any time. Because of who was involved and historical linkage and commonality they chose not to. Rightly so , imo.

[homersapien 11,382]

History is wonderful, yet has no bearing on the power or weapons available to any of the participants in the situation I mentioned, thanks though.

You MUST have missed the whole poking fun there.

That said, i think the argument can be made that a semi-automatic rifle compared to the military hardware of the U.S. is much like the musket of the 1770's.

That's why I said that the idea of an armed citizenry as a meaningful counterbalance to a government, even one with a standing army, "might have had some relevance in the late 18 century, assuming the absence of a standing army and considering a muzzle loading musket or rifle represented the state-of-the-art infantry weapon.

But 2013 it is a romantic myth.

[japantiger 4,051]

History is wonderful, yet has no bearing on the power or weapons available to any of the participants in the situation I mentioned, thanks though.

You MUST have missed the whole poking fun there.

That said, i think the argument can be made that a semi-automatic rifle compared to the military hardware of the U.S. is much like the musket of the 1770's.

That's why I said that the idea of an armed citizenry as a meaningful counterbalance to a government, even one with a standing army, "mi have hadsomerelevance in the late 18 century assuming the absence of a standing army and considering a muzzle loading musket or rifle represented the state-of-the-art infantry weapon, but in 2013 it is a romantic myth.

But there was a standing Army in the late 18th Century....albeit small; but there still was a US Army and Navy in the formative years of the nation. That is precisely the point. The framers; none representing the Federal government; all representing their states, placed shackles on the Federal governments ability to take away their weapons as the British Government, with it's standing Army, had ordered on them when colonists. The fact that the weapons became more lethal is pretty irrelevant. To the presumption that a smaller, less well equipped force, can't defeat a larger; better equipped force in the modern world; really? See Lybia (Quadafi had all the toys). See Vietnam (we had all the toys), See Afghanistan (Russia had all the toys).....It takes 2 conditions for this to happen 1) determined resistance willing to take casualties in a just cause 2) Corrupt, effete government that has neither the heart for war or the popular support of the people. Hmmm...yeah, doesn't sound like this country at all does it...

[AUGradinTX 0]

History is wonderful, yet has no bearing on the power or weapons available to any of the participants in the situation I mentioned, thanks though.

You MUST have missed the whole poking fun there.

That said, i think the argument can be made that a semi-automatic rifle compared to the military hardware of the U.S. is much like the musket of the 1770's.

That's why I said that the idea of an armed citizenry as a meaningful counterbalance to a government, even one with a standing army, "mi have hadsomerelevance in the late 18 century assuming the absence of a standing army and considering a muzzle loading musket or rifle represented the state-of-the-art infantry weapon, but in 2013 it is a romantic myth.

But there was a standing Army in the late 18th Century....albeit small; but there still was a US Army and Navy in the formative years of the nation. That is precisely the point. The framers; none representing the Federal government; all representing their states, placed shackles on the Federal governments ability to take away their weapons as the British Government, with it's standing Army, had ordered on them when colonists. The fact that the weapons became more lethal is pretty irrelevant. To the presumption that a smaller, less well equipped force, can't defeat a larger; better equipped force in the modern world; really? See Lybia (Quadafi had all the toys). See Vietnam (we had all the toys), See Afghanistan (Russia had all the toys).....It takes 2 conditions for this to happen 1) determined resistance willing to take casualties in a just cause 2) Corrupt, effete government that has neither the heart for war or the popular support of the people. Hmmm...yeah, doesn't sound like this country at all does it...

I read where someone anonymously polled various ranks of active military and 75% of those polled said they would ignore orders to engage the US population. I'm having trouble finding it. I'll keep looking.

[japantiger 4,051]

History is wonderful, yet has no bearing on the power or weapons available to any of the participants in the situation I mentioned, thanks though.

You MUST have missed the whole poking fun there.

That said, i think the argument can be made that a semi-automatic rifle compared to the military hardware of the U.S. is much like the musket of the 1770's.

That's why I said that the idea of an armed citizenry as a meaningful counterbalance to a government, even one with a standing army, "mi have hadsomerelevance in the late 18 century assuming the absence of a standing army and considering a muzzle loading musket or rifle represented the state-of-the-art infantry weapon, but in 2013 it is a romantic myth.

But there was a standing Army in the late 18th Century....albeit small; but there still was a US Army and Navy in the formative years of the nation. That is precisely the point. The framers; none representing the Federal government; all representing their states, placed shackles on the Federal governments ability to take away their weapons as the British Government, with it's standing Army, had ordered on them when colonists. The fact that the weapons became more lethal is pretty irrelevant. To the presumption that a smaller, less well equipped force, can't defeat a larger; better equipped force in the modern world; really? See Lybia (Quadafi had all the toys). See Vietnam (we had all the toys), See Afghanistan (Russia had all the toys).....It takes 2 conditions for this to happen 1) determined resistance willing to take casualties in a just cause 2) Corrupt, effete government that has neither the heart for war or the popular support of the people. Hmmm...yeah, doesn't sound like this country at all does it...

I read where someone anonymously polled various ranks of active military and 75% of those polled said they would ignore orders to engage the US population. I'm having trouble finding it. I'll keep looking.

Of course they would ignore it. Having been one of them; and knowing as many as I still do...

[homersapien 11,382]

History is wonderful, yet has no bearing on the power or weapons available to any of the participants in the situation I mentioned, thanks though.

You MUST have missed the whole poking fun there.

That said, i think the argument can be made that a semi-automatic rifle compared to the military hardware of the U.S. is much like the musket of the 1770's.

That's why I said that the idea of an armed citizenry as a meaningful counterbalance to a government, even one with a standing army, "mi have hadsomerelevance in the late 18 century assuming the absence of a standing army and considering a muzzle loading musket or rifle represented the state-of-the-art infantry weapon, but in 2013 it is a romantic myth.

But there was a standing Army in the late 18th Century....albeit small; but there still was a US Army and Navy in the formative years of the nation. That is precisely the point. The framers; none representing the Federal government; all representing their states, placed shackles on the Federal governments ability to take away their weapons as the British Government, with it's standing Army, had ordered on them when colonists. The fact that the weapons became more lethal is pretty irrelevant. To the presumption that a smaller, less well equipped force, can't defeat a larger; better equipped force in the modern world; really? See Lybia (Quadafi had all the toys). See Vietnam (we had all the toys), See Afghanistan (Russia had all the toys).....It takes 2 conditions for this to happen 1) determined resistance willing to take casualties in a just cause 2) Corrupt, effete government that has neither the heart for war or the popular support of the people. Hmmm...yeah, doesn't sound like this country at all does it...

I read where someone anonymously polled various ranks of active military and 75% of those polled said they would ignore orders to engage the US population. I'm having trouble finding it. I'll keep looking.

Congratulations. That's a good part of my point.

Now explain who it is we need to be arm ourselves to fight that active law enforcement and military can't handle?

[homersapien 11,382]

History is wonderful, yet has no bearing on the power or weapons available to any of the participants in the situation I mentioned, thanks though.

You MUST have missed the whole poking fun there.

That said, i think the argument can be made that a semi-automatic rifle compared to the military hardware of the U.S. is much like the musket of the 1770's.

That's why I said that the idea of an armed citizenry as a meaningful counterbalance to a government, even one with a standing army, "mi have hadsomerelevance in the late 18 century assuming the absence of a standing army and considering a muzzle loading musket or rifle represented the state-of-the-art infantry weapon, but in 2013 it is a romantic myth.

But there was a standing Army in the late 18th Century....albeit small; but there still was a US Army and Navy in the formative years of the nation. "That is precisely the point."? What is precisely the point? I was contrasting the military(power):civilian(power) situation of that time compared to today.

The framers; none representing the Federal government; all representing their states, placed shackles on the Federal governments ability to take away their weapons as the British Government, with it's standing Army, had ordered on them when colonists.

Exactly. That's why the interpretation of counterbalancing federal power had at least a little feasibility. That is no longer true.

The fact that the weapons became more lethal is pretty irrelevant.

Technological advances are irrelevant? How quaint. Technical advances have altered the realities of conflict since the first man picked up a rock to hit another. In fact, this whole debate is based on the evolution of arms technology.

To the presumption that a smaller, less well equipped force, can't defeat a larger; better equipped force in the modern world, the only presumption I am making is that a group of domestic terrorists, no matter how many, are not going to defeat local and regional police forces, much less the armed forces.

BTW, are you advocating terrorism?

See Lybia (Quadafi had all the toys). Libya was a dictatorship in which a minority - including the armed forces - were ultimately overcome by a rebellion. How does that have any relevance to the U.S.?

See Vietnam (we had all the toys), See Afghanistan (Russia had all the toys).....

We picked the losing side to support in Vietnam. Besides, it was their country to begin with. Same with Afghanistan and Russia.

I fail to see any lessons in either of these events to suggest they should direct our policies on weapons regulation. In fact, this sounds to me like more "fantasizing".

It takes 2 conditions for this to happen 1) determined resistance willing to take casualties in a just cause 2) Corrupt, effete government that has neither the heart for war or the popular support of the people. Hmmm...yeah, doesn't sound like this country at all does it...

Well, you got that right. I doesn't sound like this country at all.

[alexava 6,973]

Libian rebels had a little help, i think.

[AUGradinTX 0]

History is wonderful, yet has no bearing on the power or weapons available to any of the participants in the situation I mentioned, thanks though.

You MUST have missed the whole poking fun there.

That said, i think the argument can be made that a semi-automatic rifle compared to the military hardware of the U.S. is much like the musket of the 1770's.

That's why I said that the idea of an armed citizenry as a meaningful counterbalance to a government, even one with a standing army, "mi have hadsomerelevance in the late 18 century assuming the absence of a standing army and considering a muzzle loading musket or rifle represented the state-of-the-art infantry weapon, but in 2013 it is a romantic myth.

But there was a standing Army in the late 18th Century....albeit small; but there still was a US Army and Navy in the formative years of the nation. That is precisely the point. The framers; none representing the Federal government; all representing their states, placed shackles on the Federal governments ability to take away their weapons as the British Government, with it's standing Army, had ordered on them when colonists. The fact that the weapons became more lethal is pretty irrelevant. To the presumption that a smaller, less well equipped force, can't defeat a larger; better equipped force in the modern world; really? See Lybia (Quadafi had all the toys). See Vietnam (we had all the toys), See Afghanistan (Russia had all the toys).....It takes 2 conditions for this to happen 1) determined resistance willing to take casualties in a just cause 2) Corrupt, effete government that has neither the heart for war or the popular support of the people. Hmmm...yeah, doesn't sound like this country at all does it...

I read where someone anonymously polled various ranks of active military and 75% of those polled said they would ignore orders to engage the US population. I'm having trouble finding it. I'll keep looking.

Congratulations. That's a good part of my point.

Now explain who it is we need to be arm ourselves to fight that active law enforcement and military can't handle?

Congratulations? Umm... Thanks?

No need to explain. You know everything already. And if you don't, I'm sure you'll make something up...

[homersapien 11,382]

History is wonderful, yet has no bearing on the power or weapons available to any of the participants in the situation I mentioned, thanks though.

You MUST have missed the whole poking fun there.

That said, i think the argument can be made that a semi-automatic rifle compared to the military hardware of the U.S. is much like the musket of the 1770's.

That's why I said that the idea of an armed citizenry as a meaningful counterbalance to a government, even one with a standing army, "mi have hadsomerelevance in the late 18 century assuming the absence of a standing army and considering a muzzle loading musket or rifle represented the state-of-the-art infantry weapon, but in 2013 it is a romantic myth.

But there was a standing Army in the late 18th Century....albeit small; but there still was a US Army and Navy in the formative years of the nation. That is precisely the point. The framers; none representing the Federal government; all representing their states, placed shackles on the Federal governments ability to take away their weapons as the British Government, with it's standing Army, had ordered on them when colonists. The fact that the weapons became more lethal is pretty irrelevant. To the presumption that a smaller, less well equipped force, can't defeat a larger; better equipped force in the modern world; really? See Lybia (Quadafi had all the toys). See Vietnam (we had all the toys), See Afghanistan (Russia had all the toys).....It takes 2 conditions for this to happen 1) determined resistance willing to take casualties in a just cause 2) Corrupt, effete government that has neither the heart for war or the popular support of the people. Hmmm...yeah, doesn't sound like this country at all does it...

I read where someone anonymously polled various ranks of active military and 75% of those polled said they would ignore orders to engage the US population. I'm having trouble finding it. I'll keep looking.

Congratulations. That's a good part of my point.

Now explain who it is we need to be arm ourselves to fight that active law enforcement and military can't handle?

Congratulations? Umm... Thanks?

No need to explain. You know everything already. And if you don't, I'm sure you'll make something up...

No need to explain because "I know everything already"? That sounds like you can't explain. Is that correct?

Let me rephrase it:

If we don't need to worry about fighting our own police and armed forces, then, assuming the police and armed forces will respond to protect us, who is it we need to worry about having to fight?

[AUGradinTX 0]

History is wonderful, yet has no bearing on the power or weapons available to any of the participants in the situation I mentioned, thanks though.

You MUST have missed the whole poking fun there.

That said, i think the argument can be made that a semi-automatic rifle compared to the military hardware of the U.S. is much like the musket of the 1770's.

That's why I said that the idea of an armed citizenry as a meaningful counterbalance to a government, even one with a standing army, "mi have hadsomerelevance in the late 18 century assuming the absence of a standing army and considering a muzzle loading musket or rifle represented the state-of-the-art infantry weapon, but in 2013 it is a romantic myth.

But there was a standing Army in the late 18th Century....albeit small; but there still was a US Army and Navy in the formative years of the nation. That is precisely the point. The framers; none representing the Federal government; all representing their states, placed shackles on the Federal governments ability to take away their weapons as the British Government, with it's standing Army, had ordered on them when colonists. The fact that the weapons became more lethal is pretty irrelevant. To the presumption that a smaller, less well equipped force, can't defeat a larger; better equipped force in the modern world; really? See Lybia (Quadafi had all the toys). See Vietnam (we had all the toys), See Afghanistan (Russia had all the toys).....It takes 2 conditions for this to happen 1) determined resistance willing to take casualties in a just cause 2) Corrupt, effete government that has neither the heart for war or the popular support of the people. Hmmm...yeah, doesn't sound like this country at all does it...

I read where someone anonymously polled various ranks of active military and 75% of those polled said they would ignore orders to engage the US population. I'm having trouble finding it. I'll keep looking.

Congratulations. That's a good part of my point.

Now explain who it is we need to be arm ourselves to fight that active law enforcement and military can't handle?

Congratulations? Umm... Thanks?

No need to explain. You know everything already. And if you don't, I'm sure you'll make something up...

No need to explain because "I know everything already"? That sounds like you can't explain. Is that correct?

Let me rephrase it:

If we don't need to worry about fighting our own police and armed forces, then, assuming the police and armed forces will respond to protect us, who is it we need to worry about having to fight?

How and from whom people may need to protect themselves really isn't any of your business. Is it?

[AUcivE09 582]

Our forefathers said we have the right to bare arms. They did not put a condition on it. I find it hard to figure out why this seems to be such a difficult task for a resolution.

First amendment gives the right to speech. This is the law westboro runs their crazy clan by. Are we just going to amend our bill of rights to suit whatever collection of felons we elect into office?

Lets not kid around here - just think of the makeup of the areas hardest hit by gun violence. Are you really surprised that detroit/chicago/miami/la are tops of the list. Guns arent the problem, thugs getting dumb uneducated women pregnant and leaving kids to grow up on the streets is the problem. Dont outlaw guns - legalize shooting of gang members - weed out the people screwing it all up for us. Or maybe a not so violent solution would be to ask the Obama supports to support their own damn kids.

Yes - the above is sarcasm but tell me thining out gangs and making them targets wouldnt help.

[homersapien 11,382]

History is wonderful, yet has no bearing on the power or weapons available to any of the participants in the situation I mentioned, thanks though.

You MUST have missed the whole poking fun there.

That said, i think the argument can be made that a semi-automatic rifle compared to the military hardware of the U.S. is much like the musket of the 1770's.

That's why I said that the idea of an armed citizenry as a meaningful counterbalance to a government, even one with a standing army, "mi have hadsomerelevance in the late 18 century assuming the absence of a standing army and considering a muzzle loading musket or rifle represented the state-of-the-art infantry weapon, but in 2013 it is a romantic myth.

But there was a standing Army in the late 18th Century....albeit small; but there still was a US Army and Navy in the formative years of the nation. That is precisely the point. The framers; none representing the Federal government; all representing their states, placed shackles on the Federal governments ability to take away their weapons as the British Government, with it's standing Army, had ordered on them when colonists. The fact that the weapons became more lethal is pretty irrelevant. To the presumption that a smaller, less well equipped force, can't defeat a larger; better equipped force in the modern world; really? See Lybia (Quadafi had all the toys). See Vietnam (we had all the toys), See Afghanistan (Russia had all the toys).....It takes 2 conditions for this to happen 1) determined resistance willing to take casualties in a just cause 2) Corrupt, effete government that has neither the heart for war or the popular support of the people. Hmmm...yeah, doesn't sound like this country at all does it...

I read where someone anonymously polled various ranks of active military and 75% of those polled said they would ignore orders to engage the US population. I'm having trouble finding it. I'll keep looking.

Congratulations. That's a good part of my point.

Now explain who it is we need to be arm ourselves to fight that active law enforcement and military can't handle?

Congratulations? Umm... Thanks?

No need to explain. You know everything already. And if you don't, I'm sure you'll make something up...

No need to explain because "I know everything already"? That sounds like you can't explain. Is that correct?

Let me rephrase it:

If we don't need to worry about fighting our own police and armed forces, then, assuming the police and armed forces will respond to protect us, who is it we need to worry about having to fight?

How and from whom people may need to protect themselves really isn't any of your business. Is it?

Well, I am a citizen and if there is a national debate on gun regulations or even the second amendment, I'd say I have as much right to express my opinion and ask questions as anyone, including you. Isn't that the case?

And please be aware that if you cannot respond directly to my question, you don't have to respond at all.

[AUGradinTX 0]

History is wonderful, yet has no bearing on the power or weapons available to any of the participants in the situation I mentioned, thanks though.

You MUST have missed the whole poking fun there.

That said, i think the argument can be made that a semi-automatic rifle compared to the military hardware of the U.S. is much like the musket of the 1770's.

That's why I said that the idea of an armed citizenry as a meaningful counterbalance to a government, even one with a standing army, "mi have hadsomerelevance in the late 18 century assuming the absence of a standing army and considering a muzzle loading musket or rifle represented the state-of-the-art infantry weapon, but in 2013 it is a romantic myth.

But there was a standing Army in the late 18th Century....albeit small; but there still was a US Army and Navy in the formative years of the nation. That is precisely the point. The framers; none representing the Federal government; all representing their states, placed shackles on the Federal governments ability to take away their weapons as the British Government, with it's standing Army, had ordered on them when colonists. The fact that the weapons became more lethal is pretty irrelevant. To the presumption that a smaller, less well equipped force, can't defeat a larger; better equipped force in the modern world; really? See Lybia (Quadafi had all the toys). See Vietnam (we had all the toys), See Afghanistan (Russia had all the toys).....It takes 2 conditions for this to happen 1) determined resistance willing to take casualties in a just cause 2) Corrupt, effete government that has neither the heart for war or the popular support of the people. Hmmm...yeah, doesn't sound like this country at all does it...

I read where someone anonymously polled various ranks of active military and 75% of those polled said they would ignore orders to engage the US population. I'm having trouble finding it. I'll keep looking.

Congratulations. That's a good part of my point.

Now explain who it is we need to be arm ourselves to fight that active law enforcement and military can't handle?

Congratulations? Umm... Thanks?

No need to explain. You know everything already. And if you don't, I'm sure you'll make something up...

No need to explain because "I know everything already"? That sounds like you can't explain. Is that correct?

Let me rephrase it:

If we don't need to worry about fighting our own police and armed forces, then, assuming the police and armed forces will respond to protect us, who is it we need to worry about having to fight?

How and from whom people may need to protect themselves really isn't any of your business. Is it?

Well, I am a citizen and if there is a national debate on gun regulations or even the second amendment, I'd say I have as much right to express my opinion and ask questions as anyone, including you. Isn't that the case?

And please be aware that if you cannot respond directly to my question, you don't have to respond at all.

I did respond. Once again, it doesn't matter who or what OTHER PEOPLE feel they need protection from. That's for THEM to decide for THEMSELVES. NOT YOU to decide for them. If you feel you do not need protection you can choose not to own a firearm. That's where the decision making authority stemming from your question ends. The arrogance of some is disturbing. That's my opinion.

[homersapien 11,382]

History is wonderful, yet has no bearing on the power or weapons available to any of the participants in the situation I mentioned, thanks though.

You MUST have missed the whole poking fun there.

That said, i think the argument can be made that a semi-automatic rifle compared to the military hardware of the U.S. is much like the musket of the 1770's.

That's why I said that the idea of an armed citizenry as a meaningful counterbalance to a government, even one with a standing army, "mi have hadsomerelevance in the late 18 century assuming the absence of a standing army and considering a muzzle loading musket or rifle represented the state-of-the-art infantry weapon, but in 2013 it is a romantic myth.

But there was a standing Army in the late 18th Century....albeit small; but there still was a US Army and Navy in the formative years of the nation. That is precisely the point. The framers; none representing the Federal government; all representing their states, placed shackles on the Federal governments ability to take away their weapons as the British Government, with it's standing Army, had ordered on them when colonists. The fact that the weapons became more lethal is pretty irrelevant. To the presumption that a smaller, less well equipped force, can't defeat a larger; better equipped force in the modern world; really? See Lybia (Quadafi had all the toys). See Vietnam (we had all the toys), See Afghanistan (Russia had all the toys).....It takes 2 conditions for this to happen 1) determined resistance willing to take casualties in a just cause 2) Corrupt, effete government that has neither the heart for war or the popular support of the people. Hmmm...yeah, doesn't sound like this country at all does it...

I read where someone anonymously polled various ranks of active military and 75% of those polled said they would ignore orders to engage the US population. I'm having trouble finding it. I'll keep looking.

Congratulations. That's a good part of my point.

Now explain who it is we need to be arm ourselves to fight that active law enforcement and military can't handle?

Congratulations? Umm... Thanks?

No need to explain. You know everything already. And if you don't, I'm sure you'll make something up...

No need to explain because "I know everything already"? That sounds like you can't explain. Is that correct?

Let me rephrase it:

If we don't need to worry about fighting our own police and armed forces, then, assuming the police and armed forces will respond to protect us, who is it we need to worry about having to fight?

How and from whom people may need to protect themselves really isn't any of your business. Is it?

Well, I am a citizen and if there is a national debate on gun regulations or even the second amendment, I'd say I have as much right to express my opinion and ask questions as anyone, including you. Isn't that the case?

And please be aware that if you cannot respond directly to my question, you don't have to respond at all.

I did respond. Once again, it doesn't matter who or what OTHER PEOPLE feel they need protection from. That's for THEM to decide for THEMSELVES. NOT YOU to decide for them. If you feel you do not need protection you can choose not to own a firearm. That's where the decision making authority stemming from your question ends. The arrogance of some is disturbing. That's my opinion.

Where did I say I had the right to decide anything for anyone?

I feel it is in the best interests of our society to impose a limit on the availability of certain armaments, which is exactly what we already do for many types of weaponry. Furthermore, we would be better off if certain weapons that are currently classed within the "generally available/sporting/self-defense" category were put in the more restrictive, military weaponry category.

In other words, I feel we should treat semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines - regardless of size - the same way that fully automatic rifles of similar design are treated.

My questions are to reveal possible reasons for why we shouldn't do that. It's fine for you to disagree. But if so, then let's hear a practical reason for doing so. To fall back and change the argument to one based solely on the fundamental issue of personal rights, is fine also, but it's tantamount to admitting there is no practical justification for owning such a weapon.

Regardless, there no reason to describe my position as "arrogant". That is just a cop-out.

And since same argument can be applied to any weapon of any sort, military or otherwise can I assume that you would not regulate anything. (This is where I would normally mention grenade launchers as an example, I know everyone gets in a tizzy when I do, so I won't.)

[AUGradinTX 0]

Hold up for a second. You think gun owners need to justify why they need certain legal guns? That's backwards. The people that want to take them away should carry that burden. The problem is, the only reason you have is you "think society would be better off". That's not good enough for me. The data shows there is no AR-15 problem in this country. Therefore, I can't justify taking them away from people. Especially if the biggest reason for doing so starts with "I think".

[homersapien 11,382]

Hold up for a second. You think gun owners need to justify why they need certain legal guns? That's backwards. The people that want to take them away should carry that burden. The problem is, the only reason you have is you "think society would be better off". That's not good enough for me. The data shows there is no AR-15 problem in this country. Therefore, I can't justify taking them away from people. Especially if the biggest reason for doing so starts with "I think".

I think that in a debate, each side needs to defend (or "justify") it's position.

Lots of people, including other gun owners such as myself, feel that society would be better off....

I reject the proposition that data don't indicate we have a problem with AR-15 type weapons. The sort of data you refer to would probably would "say" we don't have a problem with automatic versions of the AR-15 were they legalized. No one claims that all of a sudden, AR-15's are going to cause massive numbers of gun-related deaths. I doubt that if submachine guns (for example) were made readily available, they would ever surpass pistols for the number of gun-related deaths. (Same is true for my proverbial grenade launchers )

But there is little doubt we would have deadly incidents involving these weapons, perhaps on a much larger scale that we have seen. (Although I would argue that a fully auto AR-15 is only marginally more deadly than a semi-auto version.)

In other words, a data-based argument for restricting these sort of weapons is a red herring. (But who knows? Maybe after we increase the numbers of AR-type rifles to tens of millions, this sort of data argument will develop some relevance, just in a different direction)

This is more about common sense than it is shear numbers of casualties. Common sense requires you to compare benefits to costs. I argue there are no real benefits and the costs, even if relatively small compared to pistols (for example) aren't necessary.

[Auburn85 432]

Hold up for a second. You think gun owners need to justify why they need certain legal guns? That's backwards. The people that want to take them away should carry that burden. The problem is, the only reason you have is you "think society would be better off". That's not good enough for me. The data shows there is no AR-15 problem in this country. Therefore, I can't justify taking them away from people. Especially if the biggest reason for doing so starts with "I think".

I think that in a debate, each side needs to defend (or "justify") it's position.

Lots of people, including other gun owners such as myself, feel that society would be better off....

I reject the proposition that data don't indicate we have a problem with AR-15 type weapons. The sort of data you refer to would probably would "say" we don't have a problem with automatic versions of the AR-15 were they legalized. No one claims that all of a sudden, AR-15's are going to cause massive numbers of gun-related deaths. I doubt that if submachine guns (for example) were made readily available, they would ever surpass pistols for the number of gun-related deaths. (Same is true for my proverbial grenade launchers )

But there is little doubt we would have deadly incidents involving these weapons, perhaps on a much larger scale that we have seen. (Although I would argue that a fully auto AR-15 is only marginally more deadly than a semi-auto version.)

In other words, a data-based argument for restricting these sort of weapons is a red herring. (But who knows? Maybe after we increase the numbers of AR-type rifles to tens of millions, this sort of data argument will develop some relevance, just in a different direction)

This is more about common sense than it is shear numbers of casualties. Common sense requires you to compare benefits to costs. I argue there are no real benefits and the costs, even if relatively small compared to pistols (for example) aren't necessary.

Then, why is so much political energy being used on AR-15s when if they're truly worried about gun violence, why not go after hand guns too since they account for much more murders?

[alexava 6,973]

Hold up for a second. You think gun owners need to justify why they need certain legal guns? That's backwards. The people that want to take them away should carry that burden. The problem is, the only reason you have is you "think society would be better off". That's not good enough for me. The data shows there is no AR-15 problem in this country. Therefore, I can't justify taking them away from people. Especially if the biggest reason for doing so starts with "I think".

I think that in a debate, each side needs to defend (or "justify") it's position.

Lots of people, including other gun owners such as myself, feel that society would be better off....

I reject the proposition that data don't indicate we have a problem with AR-15 type weapons. The sort of data you refer to would probably would "say" we don't have a problem with automatic versions of the AR-15 were they legalized. No one claims that all of a sudden, AR-15's are going to cause massive numbers of gun-related deaths. I doubt that if submachine guns (for example) were made readily available, they would ever surpass pistols for the number of gun-related deaths. (Same is true for my proverbial grenade launchers )

But there is little doubt we would have deadly incidents involving these weapons, perhaps on a much larger scale that we have seen. (Although I would argue that a fully auto AR-15 is only marginally more deadly than a semi-auto version.)

In other words, a data-based argument for restricting these sort of weapons is a red herring. (But who knows? Maybe after we increase the numbers of AR-type rifles to tens of millions, this sort of data argument will develop some relevance, just in a different direction)

This is more about common sense than it is shear numbers of casualties. Common sense requires you to compare benefits to costs. I argue there are no real benefits and the costs, even if relatively small compared to pistols (for example) aren't necessary.

Then, why is so much political energy being used on AR-15s when if they're truly worried about gun violence, why not go after hand guns too since they account for much more murders?

that is simple. there are plenty of legimate reasons for us to own handguns. we need them for self defense. if you take them away from law abiding people only criminals will have them. AR-15s are offensive weapons, not for self defense. they are only good for killing hogs in large numbers and coincidentally also killing unsuspecting strangers in crowded places or initiating war with police. so therefore regardless of the stats for the entire scope of things AR 15s are a huge problem. its just a matter of time till some half-wit decides to go out like a cult hero and mows down another large group of innocents. if we pass new laws we will not even see a difference in our lifetime but my kids and grandkids should. as far as handguns, we have to control the mental issues first and foremost even more so than assault weapons. and we have to make current gun laws more enforcable. the president set 23 executive orders. i think 15-17 not exactly sure, dealt with mental issues and the NRA rejected all 23. this dont have to be the devisive issue it is. there will have to be comprimise. the so called pro-gun side is not willing to accept any change. im pro-common sense.

[selias 2,398]

that is simple. there are plenty of legimate reasons for us to own handguns. we need them for self defense. if you take them away from law abiding people only criminals will have them. AR-15s are offensive weapons, not for self defense. they are only good for killing hogs in large numbers and coincidentally also killing unsuspecting strangers in crowded places or initiating war with police. so therefore regardless of the stats for the entire scope of things AR 15s are a huge problem. its just a matter of time till some half-wit decides to go out like a cult hero and mows down another large group of innocents. if we pass new laws we will not even see a difference in our lifetime but my kids and grandkids should. as far as handguns, we have to control the mental issues first and foremost even more so than assault weapons. and we have to make current gun laws more enforcable. the president set 23 executive orders. i think 15-17 not exactly sure, dealt with mental issues and the NRA rejected all 23. this dont have to be the devisive issue it is. there will have to be comprimise. the so called pro-gun side is not willing to accept any change. im pro-common sense.

1. If I want to kill a bunch of strangers in a confined space, I wouldn't use an AR-15, I'd grab a shotgun. If I wanted to kill strangers at long range, I wouldn't grab an AR-15, I'd use a 30-06.

2. The Second Amendment wasn't just for home defense or hunting. The founding fathers feared a standing army leading to oppression of the citizens. You may laugh at the idea of armed citizens making a stand against a trained army but that's exactly what the Revolutionary Army did against the British. It's what the Vietnamese did against the French and the U.S. It's exactly what the Afghanis are doing against the U.S. History is full of examples

[Weegle777 78]

Hold up for a second. You think gun owners need to justify why they need certain legal guns? That's backwards. The people that want to take them away should carry that burden. The problem is, the only reason you have is you "think society would be better off". That's not good enough for me. The data shows there is no AR-15 problem in this country. Therefore, I can't justify taking them away from people. Especially if the biggest reason for doing so starts with "I think".

I think that in a debate, each side needs to defend (or "justify") it's position.

Lots of people, including other gun owners such as myself, feel that society would be better off....

I reject the proposition that data don't indicate we have a problem with AR-15 type weapons. The sort of data you refer to would probably would "say" we don't have a problem with automatic versions of the AR-15 were they legalized. No one claims that all of a sudden, AR-15's are going to cause massive numbers of gun-related deaths. I doubt that if submachine guns (for example) were made readily available, they would ever surpass pistols for the number of gun-related deaths. (Same is true for my proverbial grenade launchers ^-^/> )

But there is little doubt we would have deadly incidents involving these weapons, perhaps on a much larger scale that we have seen. (Although I would argue that a fully auto AR-15 is only marginally more deadly than a semi-auto version.)

In other words, a data-based argument for restricting these sort of weapons is a red herring. (But who knows? Maybe after we increase the numbers of AR-type rifles to tens of millions, this sort of data argument will develop some relevance, just in a different direction)

This is more about common sense than it is shear numbers of casualties. Common sense requires you to compare benefits to costs. I argue there are no real benefits and the costs, even if relatively small compared to pistols (for example) aren't necessary.

Then, why is so much political energy being used on AR-15s when if they're truly worried about gun violence, why not go after hand guns too since they account for much more murders?

that is simple. there are plenty of legimate reasons for us to own handguns. we need them for self defense. if you take them away from law abiding people only criminals will have them. AR-15s are offensive weapons, not for self defense. they are only good for killing hogs in large numbers and coincidentally also killing unsuspecting strangers in crowded places or initiating war with police. so therefore regardless of the stats for the entire scope of things AR 15s are a huge problem. its just a matter of time till some half-wit decides to go out like a cult hero and mows down another large group of innocents. if we pass new laws we will not even see a difference in our lifetime but my kids and grandkids should. as far as handguns, we have to control the mental issues first and foremost even more so than assault weapons. and we have to make current gun laws more enforcable. the president set 23 executive orders. i think 15-17 not exactly sure, dealt with mental issues and the NRA rejected all 23. this dont have to be the devisive issue it is. there will have to be comprimise. the so called pro-gun side is not willing to accept any change. im pro-common sense.

So a guy walking into a crowded place with one Semi-auto AR-15 is more dangerous than a guy with four locked and loaded Glock 9's? A weapon is neither offensive nor defensive. It is a tool. The user makes a weapon offensive or defensive.

[alexava 6,973]

that is simple. there are plenty of legimate reasons for us to own handguns. we need them for self defense. if you take them away from law abiding people only criminals will have them. AR-15s are offensive weapons, not for self defense. they are only good for killing hogs in large numbers and coincidentally also killing unsuspecting strangers in crowded places or initiating war with police. so therefore regardless of the stats for the entire scope of things AR 15s are a huge problem. its just a matter of time till some half-wit decides to go out like a cult hero and mows down another large group of innocents. if we pass new laws we will not even see a difference in our lifetime but my kids and grandkids should. as far as handguns, we have to control the mental issues first and foremost even more so than assault weapons. and we have to make current gun laws more enforcable. the president set 23 executive orders. i think 15-17 not exactly sure, dealt with mental issues and the NRA rejected all 23. this dont have to be the devisive issue it is. there will have to be comprimise. the so called pro-gun side is not willing to accept any change. im pro-common sense.

1. If I want to kill a bunch of strangers in a confined space, I wouldn't use an AR-15, I'd grab a shotgun. If I wanted to kill strangers at long range, I wouldn't grab an AR-15, I'd use a 30-06.

2. The Second Amendment wasn't just for home defense or hunting. The founding fathers feared a standing army leading to oppression of the citizens. You may laugh at the idea of armed citizens making a stand against a trained army but that's exactly what the Revolutionary Army did against the British. It's what the Vietnamese did against the French and the U.S. It's exactly what the Afghanis are doing against the U.S. History is full of examples

you are tactically challenged. history is history. things have changed and you are stuck in 200year old theories because you cannot come up with a legitimate use for assault weapons.

[selias 2,398]

that is simple. there are plenty of legimate reasons for us to own handguns. we need them for self defense. if you take them away from law abiding people only criminals will have them. AR-15s are offensive weapons, not for self defense. they are only good for killing hogs in large numbers and coincidentally also killing unsuspecting strangers in crowded places or initiating war with police. so therefore regardless of the stats for the entire scope of things AR 15s are a huge problem. its just a matter of time till some half-wit decides to go out like a cult hero and mows down another large group of innocents. if we pass new laws we will not even see a difference in our lifetime but my kids and grandkids should. as far as handguns, we have to control the mental issues first and foremost even more so than assault weapons. and we have to make current gun laws more enforcable. the president set 23 executive orders. i think 15-17 not exactly sure, dealt with mental issues and the NRA rejected all 23. this dont have to be the devisive issue it is. there will have to be comprimise. the so called pro-gun side is not willing to accept any change. im pro-common sense.

1. If I want to kill a bunch of strangers in a confined space, I wouldn't use an AR-15, I'd grab a shotgun. If I wanted to kill strangers at long range, I wouldn't grab an AR-15, I'd use a 30-06.

2. The Second Amendment wasn't just for home defense or hunting. The founding fathers feared a standing army leading to oppression of the citizens. You may laugh at the idea of armed citizens making a stand against a trained army but that's exactly what the Revolutionary Army did against the British. It's what the Vietnamese did against the French and the U.S. It's exactly what the Afghanis are doing against the U.S. History is full of examples

you are tactically challenged. history is history. things have changed and you are stuck in 200year old theories because you cannot come up with a legitimate use for assault weapons.

Whoa, my dad must be one of the oldest men around having served in Vietnam 200 years ago and now I wonder how old my brother is having served in Afghanistan 200 years ago.

[AUDub 11,152]

So a guy walking into a crowded place with one Semi-auto AR-15 is more dangerous than a guy with four locked and loaded Glock 9's? A weapon is neither offensive nor defensive. It is a tool. The user makes a weapon offensive or defensive.

I would point out that the fact that although the guns have the same purpose, there is a reason the standard issue weapons for combat in the armed forces are not handguns.

[alexava 6,973]

Im im ignoring vietnam and the middle east. Its not relevant to our situation. lets stick to the civilized world