And if this particular jack off does just want to "mow down the range" (my targets, not the other shooters, obviously) why shouldn't I be allowed to do that? Because someone else might be psychotic? What does that have to do with me?
Gun control
- Thread starter Saladus
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Agree with you on that, as long as you're not being a jackass and ruining good times for others there shouldn't be any problem with you owning and firing your weapon however you want.
Well banning new assault rifles is an unjustified imposition on people who would like to own them (since it drives the prices through the roof), and an imposition on the manufacturers (for obvious reasons). The registration and magazine limitations are unjustified impositions on current owners. I say unjustified because these things all carry with them the implied violence of the state as a final measure of enforcement. That means that justification happens to matter here. Do you have some reason to believe that I'm wrong about these impositions being unjustified (or about the importance of justification in the first place)?
Yeah, seriously, fucking amazing point Mikhail.
Target practice. A+ argument for not banning guns, especially the powerful high-caliber ones.
Keep up that line of reasoning. Seriously.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
The high-caliber ones? Is there a particular caliber you consider high? Or are you one of those idiots that think the AR-15 shoots high caliber bullets?
Why is it logical, moral, or ethical, to allow people to have powerful weapons that are designed to kill ? Isn't it moral to want a peaceful society ? Isn't it logical that a peaceful society is easier to attain without violent weapons ? Isn't it ethical to ensure that people can't easily kill each other ? And besides, if you're going to throw out the constitution and argue based on new-age hippy bullshit like morals and ethics to determine whether or not people can have guns, what makes your morals or logic superior to mine ?
Ignatius
#thePewPewLife
- 4,760
- 6,401
To shoot off several twelve packs of shitty mountain dew at peak efficiency I need an ar-15 with a C-Mag (not the shitty Korean knock off, American made only kthxbye) and a bump fire stock.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I've never said anything remotely close to what you think I said.
If people want to read 2A cases and discuss them then by all means, go for it. It seems like Soy has done some of that, going over Heller. Or if people want to read what the law does and discuss it, awesome. I've done some of that with Borzak and others. Of course, for either one should go to actual primary sources, the law and the cases, which are available online.
MB seems to want to discuss Philosophy of Law issues. I generally don't enjoy those types of conversations but others may. Dope.
I think a number of you have misunderstood Soy. In explaining why using the phrase "the government" is problematic when dealing with an issue the involves multiple governments, some people decided he was defending the specifics of the law. I haven't understood him to defend the specifics of the law, or to argue that the law will survive the inevitable legal challenge. I've understood him only to argue that this law is not "the government taking away guns", but a product of our federalist system working as intended, parts or all which, may, or may not, be eventually found unconstitutional by our legal system, which will also be working as intended.
.223 is actually illegal to hunt deer with in many states because it is not sufficient enough to provide a clean kill.
Shhhhhhhh!! In Mikhail's world, you can defend the right to bear arms without reference to the rights enumerated in the constitution. All it takes is a little sprinkle of logic, ethics, morals, and everything nice !
Ignatius
#thePewPewLife
- 4,760
- 6,401
I'd feel bad using it on anything but maybe a hog, and even then higher grain bullets only with someone who knows how to aim.
He might be wrong about the morality of the state imposing it's will (that's a debate for somewhere else), but I agree with him to ban something there should be a justification or reason based on reality or compelling evidence.
It's not gun owners responsibility to prove their necessity to own weapons.
It's the states / governments job to prove why gun owners shouldn't be allowed to own certain types of weapons. So far, all they have done is appeal to people's emotions and ignorance in banning these types of rifles.
It isn't ethical to use the threat of government violence to stop them without sufficient justification.
They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, our society is, in historical terms, more peaceful than ever.
No that doesn't follow at all, particularly when you look at the decidedly un-peaceful path that would have to be followed to arrive and maintain a society without violent weapons (not to mention the impossibility of doing so, unless we're about to start banning knives).
Not if it's threatening to kill them unless they comply. Moreover, there are plenty of situations where people mightneedto kill each other. It's certainly not ethical to prevent people from defending themselves.
1. I love how morals and ethics are "new-age hippy bullshit" in your eyes.
2. I love how I'm being accused of "new-age hippy bullshit" by the person who believes a ban on assault rifles is justified by a preference for a peaceful society.
3. Morals are fundamentally aesthetic in nature. Where we agree, they form a basis from which we can make ethical arguments that might convince the other. Where we disagree their expression still serves a purpose in that it allows others the opportunity to contextualize our arguments in the premises from which they originate. I can't claim that my morals are superior because of the nature of morals and I can't claim that my ethics (or the logic that girds them) are more valid prior to the debate. That is thepurposeof debate.
I see this all the time. If the constitutionality of a bill such as the one in NY is in question, then everyone needs to stand together to fight it. Not just NY citizens. Because it effects us all. What good is the Constitution if it is only upheld some of the time, in some places? We should all be worried what sort of precedence these laws set and learn to act now and not when they're knocking on your front door.
Chanur
Shit Posting Professional
- 28,553
- 45,635
.223 is a very popular round where I live and is just fine for killing deer as long as you are not as bad of a shot as me. I know people that have dropped big bull elk with .223. Just have to be a good shot.
On a side note this 7 round clip retardation makes me glad I own a revolver.
On a side note this 7 round clip retardation makes me glad I own a revolver.
This is only true if the second amendment exists. He wants to throw out the constitution and still argue that subjective shit like morals, ethics, and logic should dictate whether we should have guns. How long do I need to lead you ?