Gun Rights: Should you be allowed to own an RPG? - Page 11 - Miata Turbo Forum -Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-27-2012, 02:16 PM   #201
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,001
Total Cats: 330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
If the ultimate goal is to recreate a Japanese or Australian-style firearms restriction, I do not see how they can permit "grandfathering" of existing firearms. This goes back to a point I think Sam made on page one of this thread (a great page, by the way!).

Those that want to use Australia and Japan as examples must acknowledge that the ultimate goal of legislation like the 2013 Feinstein proposal must be the confiscation and outlawing of currently existing and legally owned firearms.

It would seem to me to do very little good to eliminate the sale of new firearms without addressing the (hundreds of) millions already in existence.
Well, this bill will certainly introduce a framework for failure in execution that will result in legal consequences for those the bill was intended to service.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 02:25 PM   #202
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 177
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
I appreciate the time and energy you invested, but I don't really give a **** about studies and statistics when it comes to this topic. I have the right to arm myself for protection, and that right "shall not be infringed".
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A) How well regulated is the militia group you are a part of?

B) That right is already infringed in a number of ways. You can't [edit: legally and easily] buy an RPG, you can't walk around with a full-auto Thompson strapped on your back, you can't buy C4 explosives, etc. You can't even own a firearm if you are a convicted felon, if I recall correctly.


However, I do appreciate your honesty in saying, "No matter what the facts or reality is, I will never accept anything other than the religious-like perspective I currently hold." Unlike most people, you're honest about it.

I'm suddenly remembering the Spider-Man in a tree picture...

Hustler -> <- Jack
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 03:03 PM   #203
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,001
Total Cats: 330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A) How well regulated is the militia group you are a part of?

B) That right is already infringed in a number of ways. You can't [edit: legally and easily] buy an RPG, you can't walk around with a full-auto Thompson strapped on your back, you can't buy C4 explosives, etc. You can't even own a firearm if you are a convicted felon, if I recall correctly.
So you're back intentionally misinterpreting "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". You know the comma and how that works? It separates two thoughts or objects in a sentence, providing contrast or a difference in topic and sequencing. You probably feel this selection was written clumsily or that it should be adjusted because "the world is a different place" today. "The people" is not an undefined subset, which is a required and necessary assumption in your argument. So I will ask, who are "the people"? There are several ways to interpret this. Some believe the "well regulated militia" and "the people" are at odds in this statement and this provision is a "mutual destruction clause". Some believe these two are a series of dissimilar parties. I do not understand how anyone can believe this is a preclusion of "the people".
I agree, this right is already infringed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
However, I do appreciate your honesty in saying, "No matter what the facts or reality is, I will never accept anything other than the religious-like perspective I currently hold." Unlike most people, you're honest about it.
This comment represents a fundamental difference between you and I. I chose personal protection of myself and loved ones as a primary responsibility. I made this decision in consideration with the Bill of Rights, which I consider the back-bone of this nation. So yes, in fact, I take a "religious-like" stance on personal protection based upon our nation's governing document, events like the 1994 LA Riots, and the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster where, in both cases, lawlessness anarchy prevailed for some time and many were killed or injured. I promise you that my "out of touch religious attachment to guns and personal protection" can become a reality for you and many others the next time your government fails to protect you from crime. That may be in a natural disaster, widespread riot, or armed robbery in the night. The next time an unarmed woman is needlessly raped, the next time a man is killed for his car, or the next time there is a mall-shooting and no one fires back, all can rest easy knowing that victimization is a lesser-evil than owning a scary rifle or an 11-round magazine.

The core difference in our philosophy is most likely centered around my ego-centrism; my right to protection is greater than your opinion and belief which compromise my rights for what you perceive to be the good of others who choose to not protect themselves.
For this reason I don't care to hear the statistics, I'll take care of protection myself.

Last edited by hustler; 12-27-2012 at 04:07 PM. Reason: I missed some punctuation. Cannot self-warn for grammar.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 03:10 PM   #204
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,001
Total Cats: 330
Default

Quiz:
Which noun, separated by commas, does the "unreasonable search and seizure" comment apply to?

Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
A. persons
B. houses
C. papers
D. effects

Answer correctly and win HIV for life.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 03:53 PM   #205
Elite Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Taos, New mexico
Posts: 5,667
Total Cats: 227
Default

Hustler is 100% correct. This should not even be a debate, just like any of our freedoms. You can post statistics all day, but they don't matter the least bit. Anyone who tries to disarm law abiding American citizens should be hung as a traitor.

If they take our guns now, what's next? Ask yourself that. "you don't NEED a gun", or "I don't trust most people with guns" are things I've been hearing lately.

Well you don't NEED a 300whp miata. Likewise I wouldn't trust most people with a car that fast. By some chance I was lucky enough to be born in the US, so I can have one. Same with guns. Let's keep it that way.
Fireindc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 04:26 PM   #206
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 177
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fireindc View Post
Hustler is 100% correct. This should not even be a debate, just like any of our freedoms. You can post statistics all day, but they don't matter the least bit.
Just as I would ask the pro gun control people to be intellectually honest and admit that the end goal of any additional legislation - in order to make a meaningful difference in firearms-related homicides - must be the confiscation of currently legally (and illegally) owned firearms, I would ask something similar of people with the position above:


Acknowledge that - if it is true that strong firearms restrictions is correlated with other developed nations having much lower homicide rates - that more homicides in the USA is a worthwhile trade-off in order to feel more safe from events as unlikely as being present during a mass shooting (and having the where with all to stop it) to as improbable as a guerilla war against the United States Armed Forces.

In other words, if Japanese-style firearms restrictions could be proven to reduce the number of homicides, assaults and rapes in the USA to levels seen in Japan, you feel that thousands of additional deaths, assaults and rapes would be worth the right to own and carry a firearm, with as few restrictions as possible.

I think that's fine to establish that position, as long as it's been thought of in those terms and acknowledged.


Australia passed their sweeping gun restriction and confiscation laws in 1996.

AGE-STANDARDISED DEATH RATES FOR SUICIDE:
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 04:38 PM   #207
Elite Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Taos, New mexico
Posts: 5,667
Total Cats: 227
Default

Now I'm not agreeing that adopting such draconian gun laws will help, because I always see statistics thrown out on both sides constantly, each trying to prove a point. I honestly don't know. But yes, I do feel that our freedoms are worth the trade-offs even if it would help (again, debatable).

Now, what if implementing a curfew at 11:00pm, setting up CCTV surveillance on every street corner, and having heavily armed military patrol our streets would drop crimes, rapes, etc by a significant number? Would you be for that?

This is my point, freedom has its costs. I'll take my freedom, thanks.
Fireindc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 04:38 PM   #208
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Ryan_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,278
Total Cats: 122
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
In other words, if Japanese-style firearms restrictions could be proven to reduce the number of homicides, assaults and rapes in the USA to levels seen in Japan, you feel that thousands of additional deaths, assaults and rapes would be worth the right to own and carry a firearm, with as few restrictions as possible.
Although I feel the wording is a bit synical I can back this view. The rights of the individual should not be trampled upon for the "good" of the many.

You could easily argue that those thousands of extra deaths, assaults and rapes were the result of those individuals choice not to exercise their own right to carry a firearm for their own protection. They made a choice and took a risk and were the unlucky few who suffered the consequences of a bad bet.

Given that premise, do you think it would be ok to take that choice away from everyone because some people made the wrong one?

Last edited by Ryan_G; 12-27-2012 at 04:52 PM.
Ryan_G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 04:54 PM   #209
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,001
Total Cats: 330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
In other words, if Japanese-style firearms restrictions could be proven to reduce the number of homicides, assaults and rapes in the USA to levels seen in Japan, you feel that thousands of additional deaths, assaults and rapes would be worth the right to own and carry a firearm, with as few restrictions as possible.
Response A:
If we could give every woman in America a subcompact 9mm and holster, and that could be proven to reduce rape frequency in America by killing the aggressor, you feel that thousands of rapes would be worth living in a higher-state of consciousness without guns and appreciating the life of the rapist?

Response B:
Begging the question
Fallacy of composition
Fallacy of false cause
Irrelevant conclusion

Response C:
No, I wouldn't take it because your fallacy game-show question does not ensure my protection. If my home home is robbed, GF is raped, or I am assaulted I will find no solace in the statistical anomaly.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 05:15 PM   #210
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 177
Default

I think those are all reasonable responses and ways to think about it (well, most of what Hustler wrote, anyway).

Fireindc - RE: The Orwellian police state premise. I think that's a really interesting question. Granted, fear of slippery slopes can always prevent marginal improvements but I think you make a great point.

Ryan_G - Another very interesting way to think about it.

Hustler - In your premise A, I would donate to whatever charitable cause helped ensure every woman had access to that sidearm and the training to use it effectively (or send a check to the US Treasury if it was a Federal program).
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 05:18 PM   #211
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,001
Total Cats: 330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
Hustler - In your premise A, I would donate to whatever charitable cause helped ensure every woman had access to that sidearm and the training to use it effectively (or send a check to the US Treasury if it was a Federal program).
That would be an awesome charity.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 05:32 PM   #212
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,527
Total Cats: 392
Default

Can it really be called "begging the question" if the person has openly stated that they are assuming certain (debated) facts? It's not question-begging if you're not trying to hide the implied assumptions.
mgeoffriau is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 06:38 PM   #213
Antisaint
iTrader: (17)
 
Vashthestampede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Danbury, CT
Posts: 4,638
Total Cats: 47
Default

Get rid of guns today and the internet tomorrow. Start compromising one freedom and the rest will soon follow.

That elementary school shooting happened 20 mins from our shop and lots of people I know have been affected by it. Not too many of them think it's the guns fault.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Vashthestampede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 06:44 PM   #214
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 177
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vashthestampede View Post
Get rid of guns today and the internet tomorrow. Start compromising one freedom and the rest will soon follow.

[...]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Australia, Japan, the UK, etc all still have plenty of access to the internet. Just sayin'.


Also, "guns don't kill people, but people kill people more often and more efficiently with guns in the USA than in other developed nations."
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 06:59 PM   #215
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Ryan_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,278
Total Cats: 122
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
Also, "guns don't kill people, but people kill people more often and more efficiently with guns in the USA than in other developed nations."
That is because America is #1 ************.
Ryan_G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 07:10 PM   #216
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 177
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rleete View Post
Articles: Murder by Numbers


Some quotes:
...the murder rate is historically low and is already trending downward. In fact, the murder rate in 2011 was the lowest since 1961...

And:
In over 52% of the murders in the US in 2011 in which the race of the murderer was known, the murderer was black. Over half of the victims of murder were also black. But blacks are only 13.6% of the population. Put all that together, and the murder rate in the US for non-blacks was more like 2.6 per 100,000 in 2011.


Here is a really interesting study done in 2002 with some references to past studies done on the related topic. White, Black and Latino Homicide Rates: Why the Difference?

Some of the concepts are really obvious and intuitive, but framed in such a way that I hadn't thought about them in the same phrasing.

That got me thinking about whether the other countries mentioned like the UK, Germany and Australia have the same relative number of "bad neighborhoods" that the USA does. That is, these residentially segregated areas, usually as parts of larger cities, that probably make up 70 - 90% of the homicides in that city (and combined, 70+% of the state).
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 08:41 PM   #217
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
 
shuiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 12,400
Total Cats: 777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_G View Post
That is because America is #1 ************.
Murica **** yeah!!!
shuiend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2012, 11:06 PM   #218
Elite Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Taos, New mexico
Posts: 5,667
Total Cats: 227
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vashthestampede View Post
Get rid of guns today and the internet tomorrow. Start compromising one freedom and the rest will soon follow.

That elementary school shooting happened 20 mins from our shop and lots of people I know have been affected by it. Not too many of them think it's the guns fault.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
I've always liked you, Vash. now i know why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack View Post
Australia, Japan, the UK, etc all still have plenty of access to the internet. Just sayin'.
The internet is just an example, I'm sure you know each of those countries could be considered substantially less "free" than america each in their own ways.
Fireindc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 07:35 AM   #219
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 177
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fireindc View Post
The internet is just an example, I'm sure you know each of those countries could be considered substantially less "free" than america each in their own ways.
I don't know if that's true. Can you think of some examples?

I know Britain has a lot more CCTV and automated speeding cameras. I vaguely remember Australia banning some video games. I'm not sure about Germany, Finland or Japan.
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 09:30 AM   #220
Junior Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Lansdale, PA
Posts: 462
Total Cats: 3
Default

Hustler - spot on.

To the crowd of "US has more killings because we lack strict gun laws", read this

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

Also, you cannot honestly say that Japan's lower crime right is strictly correlated to gun laws, as there are many factors at play. Family life and structure, ACTUAL punishment for crimes, the Japanese society in general, etc. etc.

There is evil in the world, and the best way for me to be prepared to defend myself against it is a firearm. I have that natural right as a human being and it is protected by our Bill of Rights. Without the Second, there is no way to enforce the First, Third, Fourth, etc.
BradC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Turbo 1995 Miata Low mileage Clean Tekel Cars for sale/trade 29 02-05-2016 05:16 PM
IT Pros: HELP! Al Jazeera something something Brighthouse Account sixshooter Insert BS here 11 09-01-2015 11:51 AM
Who's Idea was it to give cops taser guns RicanmiataRacer Insert BS here 10 03-04-2007 03:07 PM
Is the SMT6 comparable to the Emanage Blue/Emu/MS? Mex Prefabbed Turbo Kits 1 09-28-2006 05:15 PM
FS: Turbo XS H34 BOV BrokeEnthusiast Miata parts for sale/trade 1 09-06-2006 11:16 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:03 PM.