To all the gun nuts out there.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


your an idiot

[/ QUOTE ]

I rest my case.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
The question I have is where does the limit exist? Unless you advocate that all types of weapons should be allowed for personal ownership, there must be a limit at which the weapon becomes too ridiculous to own.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your opponent determines your choice of weapon. If you're concerned about protecting yourself from criminals -- then pay attention to their weapons of choice, and arm yourself with something a little better.

Then add a shotgun.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question I have is where does the limit exist? Unless you advocate that all types of weapons should be allowed for personal ownership, there must be a limit at which the weapon becomes too ridiculous to own.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your opponent determines your choice of weapon. If you're concerned about protecting yourself from criminals -- then pay attention to their weapons of choice, and arm yourself with something a little better.

[/ QUOTE ]

No matter where you draw the line, I don't think what you just wrote is very logical. First of all, every weapon imaginable is potentially in the hands of some criminal. Secondly, how do you define "better"? Finally, a weapon which is deemed worse on your list would often actually be very sufficient in many situations. E.g. you come to my house with an an AK47, and I pull out my Glock and blast you.

-ptmusic

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
No matter where you draw the line, I don't think what you just wrote is very logical. First of all, every weapon imaginable is potentially in the hands of some criminal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Potentially, sure. That's why I wrote "weapons of choice". When criminals commonly wear body armor, I'll want armor piercing rounds. But since I don't have any indication that they are, I don't. It makes sense to be prepared to confront your probable opponent, not any opponent.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No matter where you draw the line, I don't think what you just wrote is very logical. First of all, every weapon imaginable is potentially in the hands of some criminal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Potentially, sure. That's why I wrote "weapons of choice". When criminals commonly wear body armor, I'll want armor piercing rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

There already are criminals wearing body armor.

[ QUOTE ]
But since I don't have any indication that they are, I don't. It makes sense to be prepared to confront your probable opponent, not any opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, now you're getting somewhere. But how do you define "probable". Let's say you define "probable" as a greater than 50% chance of happening anytime during the rest of your life (a very loose definition).

It is not probable that you will EVER confront an "opponent" who is aiming any gun at you, unless you put yourself in dangerous situations regularly. And if that small chance does come to be, it is even less likely that you will have your weapon available. And even then, there is a good possibility your weapon will end up doing you no good.

Are you sure you still want to base where the line is drawn on what weapons you should be able to purchase on your "probable" criminal opponent? Because in that case, no one should be allowed to own any guns at all.

-ptmusic

[fatherofmany]

The fact that there are seemingly otherwise intelligent people who espouse arguments in favor of "gun control" is by itself testament to how ignorant and shortsighted the American people have allowed themselves to become. The fact that these same people often claim to hold dear the principles of liberty and freedom is both baffling and disheartening.

Our forefathers were wise enough to recognize that the key ingredient of a "free" group of people hinged on their ultimate and essential right and *duty* to uphold that freedom, by force if necessary.


[ QUOTE ]
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. JAMES MADISON

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. THOMAS JEFFERSON

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character. ALEXANDER HAMILTON

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. NOAH WEBSTER

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. PATRICK HENRY

[/ QUOTE ]

Times have changed, but the corruptable human nature and the pervasive effect of absolute power that made these sentiments true two hundred years ago have most definately not.

[MMMMMM]

ptmusic,

I think if you replace "probable" with "most probable" you will see the point the poster was trying to make.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
After reading the past few threads I've seen that yall have a thing for guns based on two main ideas.

1) Guns are essential tools for self defense and
2) Guns are needed in order to fight for our freedom (against ours or any government)

The question I have is where does the limit exist? Unless you advocate that all types of weapons should be allowed for personal ownership, there must be a limit at which the weapon becomes too ridiculous to own.

Is it a hand gun? a rifle? I'm guessing you will claim these are essential.

How about a sub machine gun (think MP-5 or tommy gun) or an automatic rifle (think AK 47)? These seem far less necessary.

Now we kick it up. How about machine guns? A SAW would be a great way to defend my home if 30 theives attempted entry where as my 6 shooter would leave me quite short. Or maybe a browning .50 cal on the roof, so that I could blow em away before they even got out of their vehicle.

Maybe I need a flamethrower or RPG in order to really defend my home. How about an attack helicopter to shoot down government planes that are infringing on my rights.

An agrument could be made that all of these could be used for home defense or milita security. Do you really think people need them all? Where does the danger to innocents outweigh your ability to really blow the crap out of theif?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the limit is at whatever the individual can afford. I simply cannot understand why we try to keep guns from the people who abide by the law when we know that criminals will get guns illegally anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
And research shows that for every justifiable execution of a criminal (police and death penalty) prevents seven to eight more murders.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be joking. If you want to rely on Ehrlich's largely-discredited study from 1975, why don't you actually cite to it, rather than citing to some obscure law review article that cites it? Better yet, why not acknowledge that there, in fact, have been more recent, and conflicting, studies?

Is something like this just too balanced for you?

Come on, you can do better than making up facts to support your arguments. I have seen you do it.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm installing gun turrets and concrete bunkers in my home. Hopefully, i'll be able to get a permit to build a missile silo, but I don't know how well that's gonna work out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you afford the silo and the missles?