Yep, the AK is easy to take care of, easy to fire, and intimidating as hell. And easy enough on the shoulder that my wife could fire it.

"Most liberals come at this from a place of ignorance."

Have to stop you there...

On what basis do say most liberals are ignorant of guns?

Granted I'm not one of them, but I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats out there who shoot for recreation.

Seems a bit like my saying "Most conservatives come at poetry from a point of ignorance" which isn't at all the case (especially considering several poets--T.S. Eliot comes to mind--were, for their time and place, conservative.)

"That's a category error. That's like saying "free speech comes first before words.""

I have to disagree...
Or rather, I'd have to think at least the religious folks here would have to disagree--
Surely you CAN separate freedom and defense, if only tenuously?

If not...

What becomes of the idea of Heaven?

Surely there's no need for defense in a perfect Heaven (and I don't get the impression Jesus the Pacifist would find your carrying a bunch of semi-automatic weapons around the Pearly Gates groovy) but if that's the case, and we assume you ARE free in Heaven (if you're not that feeds into my whole God=Big Brother argument from threads gone by) then at least in theory you don't need defense for freedom, EVEN IF practically it is almost always necessary?

I'm sure you are right--there are Democrats who shoot. No doubt. But when it comes to the public debate--the rhetoric about "assault weapons", the lack of any actual specifics about calibers or features, the appeals to emotionalism--all that smacks of ignorance.

We aren't in Heaven. That's the point. We are in the real, fallen world. Where bad things happen.

@Dip

I'll call your bluff. Can you explain why anyone would need a hand gun over, say, .38 with a magazine capacity of a half dozen rounds for self defense?

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/virginia-lawmaker-brandishes-ak-47-house-floor-145619331--abc-news-politics.html

"Now, if you want to talk about calibers, about semi-auto, about handguns v. rifles, or about some of the cosmetic features that make guns look more scary, you'd be talking about issues that are actually germane."

I think I made it relatively clear from the start I wanted to talk about more the psychology behind this gun predilection--ie, why are guns very nearly deified and flat-out considered untouchable and even virtuous to a great many people in this country--rather than the actual kinds of guns, but alright...

"What confuses me, Obi, is why you fail to understand the popular American view that guns are a vital tool for controlling your own fate."

I understand that guns are tools perfectly, Octavious...
What I DON'T understand is how or why they're deified as already stated.
After all, hammers and saws and knives are all tools, and none are treated this way...
Even cars, which are on average more expensive and also something which can aptly be considered a "tool for deciding your own fate," while beloved in this country, is not quite so worshiped as are guns...

Suggest people to conserve gas, or maybe drive a cleaner car, or not such a gas guzzler, and some people will heed this and by hybrids or even electric (quality differences be damned) and even those that DON'T won't react so vehemently or with a "HOW *DARE* YOU! OVER MY DEAD BODY!" mentality.

Suggest people not abandon guns, but maybe consider owning different guns, or, what they're talking about now, different clips and sizes and kinds of weapons as well as universal background checks and the like...

And you get Alex Jones idiots going on Piers Morgan shrieking that "It'ls gonna be 1776 again!"

There's a profound psychological difference there--

Both cars and guns are arguably tools to control one's destiny...

Pass laws about the former and folks might at most grumble or vote against you...
Pass laws about the latter and a certain cross-section of the American populace feel half ready to rebel as if the combined forces of Tomato Hitler, Tomato Obama, and Tomato King George are all coming down to tax their tea, steal their Bibles, and stomp on their flower gardens.

That's a definite difference, and one I'm interested in...because frankly, from my point of view, it's a point of view that borders on paranoid fanaticism and stands in the way of progress...and that's putting it nicely.

From bo_sox's article:

""A lot of people don't know that in many locations in the commonwealth, you can take this gun, you can walk in the middle of Main Street loaded and not be in violation of the law," Morrissey said on the floor, according to the Examiner, assuring other lawmakers that the gun was not loaded.
A subcommittee voted Thursday night to kill a bill Morrissey introduced that would have tightened gun controls in the state, The Roanoke Times reported. That bill would have banned the sale of so-called assault rifles and high-capacity magazines."

You were saying something about these already being illegal, gun owners?

The bill voted down was to prohibit the sale of such weapons...so it seems as if you CAN buy such irresponsible, high-powered, totally-not-compensating-for-something pieces of merchandise such as those...

he said 'liberals' not 'democrats' the two are not the same. A person can be a Democrat, and not be a liberal. Just a person can be Conservative and not be a republican.

I am not going to bother worrying about the rest of this debate, as it matters not what i say, nobody budges on their views here.

Obi, your inane Heaven argument has been bugging me. That's the weakest argument I've ever seen you make on here.

You still don't understand the difference between fully auto and semi-auto. Educate yourself.

I think I've taken pains to explain the "psychological" principle of the issue to you. The right to self-defense is equal to the right of being a free, adult individual. Just because you are happy to be a subject, to be taken care of and coddled by the state, doesn't mean there aren't still many of us out here with the self-respect to take care of our own asses.

Abge, what do you do at longer ranges? What about when there are multiple assailants? What about the intimidation factor of a larger gun--can't you prevent actual bloodshed just by looking scary?

@Obiwan

I think you'll find that high quality tools of all kinds are "deified" to some extent by those who use them. It's a natural human reaction. Try taking a professional's tools without asking and see what happens. Try taking my Dad's socket set without asking and see what happens :p

For longer range, I suppose you could use your bolt-action hunting rifle.

In terms of intimidation, you could just fire your gun. That would make most would-be criminals shit themselves.

How many assailants do you think is reasonable to prepare for? How big of a shoot-out are you planning? That will really dictate this discussion.

In your house or small store, a small hand gun is not only enough, it is actually better than most weapons.

# or type of guns has never been linked to # of gun crimes.

If that were true, rural areas, where all homes have them would be combat zones, and we all know that is NOT true.

abge, you are correct, inside a buidling, an AK is not that great a choice. I would take any type of shotgun or a handgun (9mm glock is fine for this, or even a 38) would suffice.

An Ak would be the last gun I reached for in my house if someone was breaking in, and would also be the furthest from me. I would almost without a doubt have a glock.

And there are situations where a longer range is needed, or where a more rapid rate of fire might be desirable, Abge.

"Obi, your inane Heaven argument has been bugging me. That's the weakest argument I've ever seen you make on here."

It's admittedly an out-there argument, but it's there only because I think it's a weak point made so far on the opposing side that freedom and defense ARE equivalent.

I'm sorry, they're not...they are 1 and 2, a CLOSE 1 and 2...

But I'm sticking to my (better, hopefully) allegory of food and water--

You need both, but one is more pressing than the other; if you're in a desert and have to pick one, you might want or even need both, but almost undoubtedly you'd pick water.

Likewise, you may want and indeed need both freedom and the ability to defend that freedom, but as the second is predicated upon the first and the first is more important (if only slightly) than the second, I maintain freedom comes before defense.

What's more, that's just talking about DEFENSE--not GUN-RELATED defense.

You're going to have to make a quite better case to equate freedom with the right to bear arms as, again, both are important, but given the choice, I'm sorry, no contest...

Amendment #1 is more important than Amendment #2, and most would choose #1 if forced to choose (case in point, myself and those like me...and while I don't pretend to speak for all Americans here, clearly there's a sizable amount that would agree with me, if not, indeed, the majority.)

"I think I've taken pains to explain the "psychological" principle of the issue to you. The right to self-defense is equal to the right of being a free, adult individual."

That last part bugs me still--
WHAT about the need to own a gun = "adult" to you?
That near-obsessive need almost seems childish to me...a clamoring for protection...

Unless you really, REALLY feel that you are going to get shot tomorrow, or that Obama will invade your home tomorrow...?

"Just because you are happy to be a subject, to be taken care of and coddled by the state,"

Of for the love of--

1. A "subject," eh? So we really are approaching this in 18th century terms now? You're not doing much to show the progressiveness of your side...some might say because there isn't much of one...no, I am not a subject, I am a CITIZEN, thank you very much, and I am a citizen without the need to carry a weapon on me 24/7 as if California were still the Wild West and with the maturity to realize that there are people who dedicate their lives to protecting the innocent citizens of America, they're called policemen and soldiers, they're highly trained and actually know how and WHEN to use dangerous equipment, use it only when they have to, and thus I DON'T feel the need to play John Wayne or Clint Eastwood like a 5-year old and pretend I'ma vigilante or a gunslinger and endanger others because of my naked obsession or unfounded fear that a government that profits so much by the existing corporate model in place would want to upset said model with a takeover just for the sole purpose of being mustache-twirling Saturday Morning cartoon villains.

I'm sorry, gun ownership and the ability to "defend" yourself does NOT make you an adult, nor does it make you mature.

2. If I WERE to play your game and take "subject" instead of "citizen," are you really, REALLY telling me in that scenario you're any better off than me simply because you have a firearm? If we ARE coming at this from such an 18th century mindset, tell me--did owning a musket in 1776 REALLY make you safer sans the militia? Unless you are actually forming "a well-regulated militia" with your buddies as the 2nd Amendment states, are you REALLY any more safe from this supposed threat of tyranny with your guns clutched to your bosom than I am in my home typing on my laptop? It'd seem as if a government that considered its people "subjects" rather than "citizens" and which enacted the sort of evil plans you seem to think are going to occur would be more interested in taking out the likes of YOU--what with your guns and opposition and all--than me...so in what respect in this fallacy-ridden scenario are you any safer than I? Unless we're in for Kristallnacht Part II and they target specifically Jews, you'd seem to have the bigger bulls-eye on you than me and thus be in more danger from a power you can't possibly defend yourself against anyway, so how are you any "safer" in actuality than I when the US military is capable of drone strikes halfway around the world and is probably the best-trained and certainly the best equipped army in all the world? Your own little cache of guns is REALLY going to let you go Minutemen or Rambo on them? Explain, please--how are you more protected against such a government than me in such a situation given all that?

3. In terms of being "coddled" by the government...um...how am I being coddled by them, exactly? I don't get financial aid...at all...I don't get any special financial or medical benefits, really, aside from the fact I can stay on my parent's medical insurance for a few more years while I finish college...so...how am I, living in middle-middle class America, white, male, with no financial aid or welfare and going to a state college, being coddled by the government?

"...doesn't mean there aren't still many of us out here with the self-respect to take care of our own asses."

4. Uh-huh...you take care of yourself, do you...the model of self-sufficiency...and who is it that fixes the roads you drive on and keeps the city you live in running and the water running and so on and so forth?

Unless you're living out in some cabin in the woods making your own toilet paper from tree leaves and somehow getting electricity and an Internet hookup, you're no less connected into "the system," as it were, than I am.

A gun doesn't suddenly make you self-sufficient, or defensible, or a man.

Owning a gun simply means you own a gun.

Period.

"I think you'll find that high quality tools of all kinds are "deified" to some extent by those who use them. It's a natural human reaction. Try taking a professional's tools without asking and see what happens. Try taking my Dad's socket set without asking and see what happens :p"

Lol...

Fair enough, I suppose, but that's your dad, not society at large screaming "hands off our socket wrenches or we'll rebel!" ;)

I am pro-2nd amendment, but not that extreme, its not like I am in open revolt because I live in a country with multiple gun laws. That said I strongly disagree with this part of the opening post:
"Not wealthy should you be allowed to own guns--you should, the 2nd Amendment gives you that right"
The 2nd amendment gives you the right to own guns, it doesn't force you to own guns. It means that if you value a gun, you can legally get one. What is the easiest method of determining value? Price system.

Holy shit obiwan you are ranting krellin-style now. I can't even pick apart your argument because there is a copious amount of bullshit. I'll do my best:

"Tell me, when was the last time you heard of a civilian walking around downtown LA or NYC toting an AR-15 for "defensive" purposes?"

Never, probably because gun owners dislike being stared at as much as anyone else, and because I think (let me double check) open carry is illegal in those cities anyway. Lift up some shirts, open some purses, or unzip some jackets in Houston, Omaha, or Phoenix and you'll see a lot of handguns tucked away. I will admit that handguns are the best choice for self-defense in most situations, but the Second Amendment isn't just about self-defense. Even you have to admit that there is a point where the government gets out of hand and needs to be stopped. Sure, the military has drones and aircraft carriers, but who says that the military won't defect (at least partially) to the hypothetical rebellion? In any case, Afghanistan and Vietnam have proven that a bunch of determined guys with moderately-effective weaponry can crush any army of any size in guerrilla warfare, or at least draw out the conflict long enough to get favorable peace terms.

Also, I love how the terms being used by the left are super vague with ambiguous definitions. They use words like "assault weapon" "high-capacity magazine" and "military-style", without having any idea what they are talking about. I'll bet that there is not one single gun-grabber out there who can field-strip a simple semi-automatic pistol, much less use it with any degree of competence.

Define those terms so I can continue to debate.

Obi, I have health insurance because it gives me certain benefits and advantages. I opt to be part of that system. But my health is still my concern, my responsibility, and my business. I am delighted to live in a peaceful society with a somewhat effective police and justice system. But my personal defense is still my concern, my responsibility, and my business. Just because I live in civil society does not negate that.

@GenFlem - Also, interesting that Maniac mentioned Ireland. I'm no expert on Irish history, but I'm betting the British didn't allow the Irish to keep and bear arms for a couple of hundred years. Now why was that?

The IRA had illicit guns and bombs for 40 odd years and were not afraid to use them and had the support of a large constituancy and a neighbouring foreign power. Did it alter any British government's policy towards Northern Ireland? No. Only after the IRA agreed to decommissioning did the UK government start talking.

"It's not really comparable. During the Revolution, British and American weapons were essentially the same. What's the best weapon a citizen could get their hands on now? An M16? You know what the Military has? Drones and Carriers. Good luck."

This assertion may be correct to some degree, but is incorrect in essence. The British army had a massive superiority in artillery, which in battles of that era inflicted by far the highest percentage of casualties. Britain had first-rate battleships carrying 100+ guns, the colonies had a few privateers. The British even experimented briefly with breech-loading rifles which could easily have won them the war if they had been smart enough to deploy them more extensively. These and other factors are the reasons that Washington's army won almost zero major engagements before Yorktown, when they were backed by a professional French army and navy. Perhaps the most notable exception was George Rogers Clark's regiment of frontiersmen who were armed with Pennsylvania long-rifles, a weapon vastly superior to the Brown Bess musket, which provides an interesting argument for why citizen militias should have military-grade weapons.

Your post also ignores the basic doctrines of insurrectionist warfare. The rebel does not have to be able to beat the enemy in pitched battles. As the Viet Minh, Viet Cong, Taliban....the list goes on and on. They may have had inferior weaponry, but they did have weaponry.

Just for clarity, I'm not advocating insurrection and if there was one I would not join it, I'm just enjoying the argument for argument's sake. That' why we're all here, right?

@ Maniac - I was referring to several hundred years of the rest of Ireland, not Northern Ireland in the last 70-ish years. Sorry for not clarifying. Am I not correct in asserting that Ireland was an oppressed British colony for several hundred years, and that it was British policy to not let the Irish keep and bear arms specifically to prevent rebellion?

"A person can be a Democrat, and not be a liberal. Just a person can be Conservative and not be a republican."

Better yet, both Republicans and Democrats can be *moderate*....

Liberal and Conservative also can blend as in social liberal but fiscal conservative. A person who believes in our social responsibilities but also our fiscal responsibilities to our future generations.

@Dip

Under what situation would you need something other than a medium caliber hand gun, shotgun, or bolt action rifle for defense?

Abge, define
'for defense' Against who, and waht do 'they have'

@Stressed and abge - Who knows what might come knocking on my door? A cop who just had a mental break and has a full auto M16 and riot armor on shooting up the neighborhood? a medium caliber handgun and gonna do shit, but an AR15 with hollow points might just stop him. Point is, no one knows what they don't know and you can't limit yourself when planning for self defense.

Obi - I'm curious about if you know anyone who owns guns. I am personally well acquainted with a number of what I assume you would call "gun nuts" on the basis of the number and type of guns they own, but I assure you that none of them fit your stereotypical profile of wild-eyed fanatic. I'm guessing here, but I suspect you're grossly ignorant of gun owners and what they're really like, is that about it?