Fast and Furious! Obama

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

I apologize if I am sometimes a bit wordy Rags - those of us with more than one thought in our heads sometimes require a lengthy explanation of the thoughts, experiences, reasoning etc. that led us to a particular conclusion.

Um, it should've been clear that I was talking about myself . . . (I was being sarcastic, SJB.)

I was also referring to myself with "member" in the next post . . . (humor, SJB.)

So whenever you're ready to support the conclusion in question, please do.

In future, aside from self-refuting, equivocates, epistemological and the handful of other big words you are aware of, I'll try to limit my responses to your comment to words of one or two syllables - that should help to keep things concise.

Given what we've seen of your thrust, it couldn't hurt . . .

Who knows, that way you might actually read and think about them instead of simply waiting your turn to speak.

Convenient generality but, once again, you've yet to anchor it to any conduct of mine.

(50 edits -- I hate this keyboard . . . (exaggeration, SJB))

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

So short of someone wishing to own a nuclear bomb

Rags, in all seriousness I really don't understand your drawing that line. If it is O/K for anyone to own assault rifles, heavy machine guns, anti-tank weapons etc. then following the same personal freedom philosophy, why not Abrams tanks, artillery, SAM's, JDAMS and even nukes?

I'm not being snarky here, I really would like to know your reasoning for where you draw your personal line in this regard.

[PBzeer]

While there are certainly some who would take advantage of the ability to buy any weapon of their choice, there first has to be a legitimate seller. Which would require legitimate procurement of said weaponry. Otherwise, you're dealing with criminals who don't follow the law in the first place. And, anyone with enough money to buy such armament, could probably obtain it on the black market anyway.

While your question has a certain plausible ring to it on the surface, it presents a rather unrealistic scenario when applied to legitimate weapons sales.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

Rags, in all seriousness I really don't understand your drawing that line.

I wasn't drawing a line. I was referencing one of the issues that come up in this exchange by using the exaggerated example people use to make the point that not all weapons can be classified as "legal".

I don't think people have the right to own weapons whose potency crosses a certain line, a line that can only be defined and argued for by the sort of legal scholars we don't have enough of today. (To quote one of my favorite historians when discussing certain issue borders, ~"That I can't tell you where to draw that line doesn't mean that there isn't a line to be drawn.)

If it is O/K for anyone to own assault rifles, heavy machine guns, anti-tank weapons etc. then following the same personal freedom philosophy, why not Abrams tanks, artillery, SAM's, JDAMS and even nukes?

First, "assault rifles" is a politically packed non-term, injected into this conversation by a certain emotionalist element, in an attempt to paint these weapons and their fans as either paramilitary, or weekend paramilitary, etc.

Second, the more potent weapons you listed exceed a certain potentiality. Just as people addressing a crowd aren't allowed to incite violence under Speech, your right to own weapons doesn't extend to owning a functioning Abrams or Howitzer, a shoulder fired SAM, a limited nuke, etc.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

I don't think people have the right to own weapons whose potency crosses a certain line, a line that can only be defined and argued for by the sort of legal scholars we don't have enough of today. (To quote one of my favorite historians when discussing certain issue borders, ~"That I can't tell you where to draw that line doesn't mean that there isn't a line to be drawn.)

You don't need legal scholars, the answer is simple - When the weapons SOLE FUNCTION is to kill humans it is over the line.

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

First, "assault rifles" is a politically packed non-term, injected into this conversation by a certain emotionalist element, in an attempt to paint these weapons and their fans as either paramilitary, or weekend paramilitary, etc.

It is a perfectly valid term for light weapons that are exclusively designed and created for military use only. When they serve no other purpose than efficient killing of humans they have also crossed the line.

And... please don't bother with the tired justifications of target shooting or self defense - they are unconvincing rationalizations.

See how simple it really is?

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by SloopJonB

You don't need legal scholars, the answer is simple - When the weapons SOLE FUNCTION is to kill humans it is over the line.

You most certainly need those scholars, as the standard you offer has more holes in it than a street sign down South.

It is a perfectly valid term for light weapons that are exclusively designed and created for military use only.

There's no such thing, though. M16s, ARIIs, Uzis, Cheytacs, etc can and are used for far more than the military uses they were designed for. (Sometimes, it's the number of rounds that a clip can hold that determines if a given rifle is or isn't in assault weapon mode, for example. That's an obscene, non-essentials definition, which makes it all but certain that "assault weapon" is a non-concept.)

When they serve no other purpose than efficient killing of humans they have also crossed the line.

Again, the high military specs they're designed to makes them great for other, perfectly valid uses so the standard you've drawn isn't helpful. (Yes, we can find perfectly valid uses for all kinds of lethal weapon systems. It's the potentiality that's at issue when deciding if civilians should be allowed to own these weapons, not the initial intent of the design, not the peaceful uses they may be put to.)

And... please don't bother with the tired justifications of target shooting or self defense - they are unconvincing rationalizations.

Oh?

You're going to tell someone what weapon they're comfortable defending themselves with, or which weapon they're going to hunt with, shoot at targets with, shoot for the shear fun of using an exceptional firearm, or collect? On what grounds? (Again, 99.99% of the people that own these things manage to get through life without using them to commit a crime, so the numbers don't even begin to make a case for this sort of thing.)

Take the Cheytac, for example, the only serious rifle I'd ever be interested in. What makes me and others love that thing is that it can put a round on target almost two miles out -- in the right hands. You have absolutely no grounds by which to deny anyone access to such an engineering marvel.

You and collectivists in general need to get over the horrific view of humanity at the core of your ethical and political outlook.

See how simple it really is?

Simplistic is the better term. The subjectivity and circularity of the standard you put up reflects a contemporary approach that erodes our freedoms.

Like I said, we need far, far better scholars than we have today to draw these lines.

And whenever you get the time to address some of the Qs I've asked of you, or to back up any of your smearing generalities, please do.

[jerryrlitton]

There will always be the sheeple who either believe in A: There are no evil doers out in the world (Or at least not in the USA) who will do me or my family harm so there is no need for a person to own a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill a human being.
Or B: There will always be a cop or another member of our government close by who will stop said evil doer from doing me or my family harm.

Get real,

Jerry

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by RAGNAR

You most certainly need those scholars, as the standard you offer has more holes in it than a street sign down South.



There's no such thing, though. M16s, ARIIs, Uzis, Cheytacs, etc can and are used for far more than the military uses they were designed for. (Sometimes, it's the number of rounds that a clip can hold that determines if a given rifle is or isn't in assault weapon mode, for example. That's an obscene, non-essentials definition, which makes it all but certain that "assault weapon" is a non-concept.)



Again, the high military specs they're designed to makes them great for other, perfectly valid uses so the standard you've drawn isn't helpful. (Yes, we can find perfectly valid uses for all kinds of lethal weapon systems. It's the potentiality that's at issue when deciding if civilians should be allowed to own these weapons, not the initial intent of the design, not the peaceful uses they may be put to.)



Oh?

You're going to tell someone what weapon they're comfortable defending themselves with, or which weapon they're going to hunt with, shoot at targets with, shoot for the shear fun of using an exceptional firearm, or collect? On what grounds? (Again, 99.99% of the people that own these things manage to get through life without using them to commit a crime, so the numbers don't even begin to make a case for this sort of thing.)

Take the Cheytac, for example, the only serious rifle I'd ever be interested in. What makes me and others love that thing is that it can put a round on target almost two miles out -- in the right hands. You have absolutely no grounds by which to deny anyone access to such an engineering marvel.

You and collectivists in general need to get over the horrific view of humanity at the core of your ethical and political outlook.



Simplistic is the better term. The subjectivity and circularity of the standard you put up reflects a contemporary approach that erodes our freedoms.

Like I said, we need far, far better scholars than we have today to draw these lines.

And whenever you get the time to address some of the Qs I've asked of you, or to back up any of your smearing generalities, please do.

So Rags, the bottom line here is that your line is the only one that shouldn't be crossed - as I expected.

[PBzeer]

What I find interesting is the notion that while collateral damage in economic programs is perfectly acceptable (we have to put up with the fraud, to do the good), it's not acceptable when it comes to peaceful pursuits based on rights. And well you might say, "but people die from the use of guns", and this is true. I guess that is somehow worse than spawning generations of dependent people and all the baggage that come with them.

For the record, I don't own a gun (except for a flare gun), and have only owned one six shot .22 pistol that I got in trade for something someone wanted. Nor do I have any interest in owning a gun.

[jerryrlitton]

JonB, I am curious, what group ref 27 do you believe you fall in? A, B or another? I am just wondering if you have the intestinal fortitude to commit. In my experience there are a group of people who will not answer a question such as that because they simply cannot do so, meanwhile they will condemn those of use who can answer that question.

Jerry