If I interpreted your post correctly, then we are on the same side, SD (it was tough to read, though). My exact point was that we never know what we need to defend against, so we need to prepare for the absolute worst possibility and then go a little beyond knowing that we can't possibly imagine the worst that could happen.

I have an M39 EMR and it's selective-fire. It is compatible with 100-round Beta C-Magazines. I could kill a lot of people if I wanted to, but I don't, because I'm not a psychopath and the proper authorities have decided as much (I have a Federal Firearms License)

I am *not* opposed to background checks for certain weapons, nor am I opposed to some sort of progressive licensing system, so that to own more dangerous weapon types you have to undergo more training (for example, a 1-hour class and abbreviated background check for a revolver or hunting shotgun, and a weekend class and extensive background check for a semi-automatic rifle)

I *am* opposed to banning weapons by type. As law-abiding, mentally competent American citizens, we have a fundamental right to own and carry whatever the hell we want as far as firearms are concerned. I would love to be able to walk through the streets slinging an M60 without people staring at me.

@flemgem - "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?" And how did that work out? oh yes they rebelled and won independents.

My point is this - might does not make right. A population that is downtrodded can gain independence when arms are restricted and when a well-armed rebellion doesn't have the support of the population it will fail.

What gun supporters need to answer is this? When are you going to rise up and overthrow your government by force? When they cripple the country by debt? When they overuse presidential dictate? When they allow a man to marry a man? When the restrict the 2nd amendment? Tell me Flem, Gunfighter and others when are you ever going to use those guns against your elected representatives?

When they start talking about taking them by force

Obi, I see you posted some responses to my brief post of last night, so I'll respond quickly. Your "heaven" argument is pretty bad, sorry. Also I did not say that defense is the only type of freedom, or the only important type of freedom. But, it's a TYPE of freedom, not something else to be compared to freedom. We're talking about the FREEDOM TO defend myself. That's why you're making a category error when you say that freedom comes first, defense second. When you're talking about restricting self-defense, you're already talking lack of freedom, so if it really comes first, then you already believe in the right to defend.

As for the argument somebody made (I can't remember who -- possibly you, obi, but it's made all the time, anyway) that guns are no longer an effective defense against government oppression, because the government has tanks, drones, etc., it doesn't really work.

It's true that if the government wants to kill me badly enough, they'll definitely be able to, and I can't stop them. But killing me, an American citizen, with a tank or a drone will be a VERY PUBLIC and EXTREMELY controversial thing to do. It's not a decision they'll be able to make lightly, or in any way hide. People tend to notice tanks driving into their neighborhood.

On the other hand, if I weren't allowed to have (serious) guns, then they could kill me pretty easily and quietly with guns, and either hide it or come up with some story and minimize the controversy. So my ability to have semiautomatic rifles absolutely provides a very real defense against government oppression. The government would have to be in a much more extreme place to come after me when I do than when I don't have them.

Whether there is likely ever to be a circumstance where I need to worry about this is another question (one which has been ably addressed by others). I just wanted to refute the logistics point, that guns wouldn't actually make any difference against the government. They make a huge difference.

For the record, as I've said before, I don't actually own any guns, and I've never fired one. So my interest in defending the right to bear arms is not a personally motivated one, at least beyond the general personal motivation to live in a free country.

Oh, and as for heaven -- sure I'll have the right to defend myself in heaven. Only there won't be anybody trying to harm me, even possibly, so it's not a right I'll give any thought whatsoever to exercising or preparing to use.

(When it says, "They will beat their swords into ploughshares," I don't think it means because of strict new arms controls. :-P)

"What gun supporters need to answer is this? When are you going to rise up and overthrow your government by force? When they cripple the country by debt? When they overuse presidential dictate? When they allow a man to marry a man? When the restrict the 2nd amendment? Tell me Flem, Gunfighter and others when are you ever going to use those guns against your elected representatives?"

This is a great question. I'll answer in two parts:
1. I have a fairly hard time imagining a scenario in which the citizens of the united states rise against their government. On the other hand, I do not have a hard time imagining the United States going bankrupt and entering a period of extreme economic hardship and social upheaval. In such a context it is entirely plausible that the government would not be able to provide the kind of security to citizens that we are accustomed to enjoying, and in just such a context I can see local communities organizing the kind of citizen militias that the Founders envisioned. Unarmed citizens would have a hard time organizing well-armed militias.
2. Personally, I own a single-shot .410 shotgun that I inherited from my grandfather. I do not currently have any ammunition, and have not had any for about a year. It took me about 8 years to fire the 50 shells I got the last time I bought ammo. I do not personally plan to participate in gun violence at any time in my life for any reason. But I do recognize that the right to defend one's person and property is a fundamental human right, so just as I recognize a person's right to use filthy and vulgar language or engage in whatever consensual adult sexual practices they wish in the privacy of their own homes, I recognize the right of my fellow citizens to keep and bear arms if they so choose.

+ 1, especially the last part of the last sentence

@gunfighter -you will use your guns to protect America "When they start talking about taking them by force".

I don't get this, you wouldn't defend anything else? It seems to me you don't care one iota about what America wants, you care more for your guns.

What FlemGem said. I am passionate for the freedom to bear arms because I have little confidence in the ability of our current political class to avert the financial cliff they've been speeding towards, and I expect some serious fecal matter to hit the rotating air circulator. Though I do have some confidence in my local and state governments here in the South.

"I don't get this, you wouldn't defend anything else? It seems to me you don't care one iota about what America wants, you care more for your guns."

If they started taking them by force, I would *not* be alone. We would fight for everyones' right to bear arms. I don't care what those pollsters say; ammunition and weapon sales have been through-the-roof since we've had that second-rate wanna-be commie dictator for a president.

dipplayer2004 is right. The problem won't be the government trying to take our guns, the problem with be the government NOT trying to save America from financial shit-hitting-the-fan and the ensuing mass chaos.

In the event of widespread civil disorder, I'm not going to trust my life to some ten-round magazine or "hunting" weapon. No, sir. I'm going with the good old M39 EMR.

A civilian population of a first-world nation should not have access to any tools that are designed to EASILY kill multiple people in a matter of seconds. Fighting this statement makes you an anarchist and/or a delusional government conspiracy nut.

^Thank you.

Hence the difference between "You can have guns for defense" and "Here, take all the weapons you want...AKs, ARs...hell, why not some tanks and bombs while you're at it?"

I kid with the tanks and bombs obviously, but still..

No, y2k, it means we actually understand reality. Just because we have achieved a high level of civilization, doesn't mean it is permanent. Civilized society is fragile, and can be interrupted or even entirely broken. Even a casual understanding of history should show that.

"Your "heaven" argument is pretty bad, sorry."

Yeah, in retrospect, it was. :)

"Also I did not say that defense is the only type of freedom, or the only important type of freedom. But, it's a TYPE of freedom, not something else to be compared to freedom. We're talking about the FREEDOM TO defend myself. That's why you're making a category error when you say that freedom comes first, defense second."

OK, fair enough to say that Freedom To is a freedom, but that being said, any Freedom To needs to be specified, and while the one in question--Freedom to Defense--is a freedom that should be granted, that does NOT mean we have to take that a step further and say "Freedom to Defense WITH GUNS."

There's the rub. So many gun advocates compound the issue by conflating "defense" and "guns," so to them outlawing one appears to be outlawing the other when, in fact, that's not necessarily the case.

For example, my dad's an ex-CHP officer and a pro-guns, anti-Obama guy all the way...that being said, as my mother's not wild about guns, it's a crossbow and aluminum bat under the bed he keeps for defense, not an AR-15 or assault rifle.

THERE is the difference-you CAN defend yourself without resorting to guns...and even allowing for guns (as it'd be rather naive in the 21st century to say everyone should resort to defense without guns in a society that's full of them as it is) you can defend yourself, as I've stated over and over, with a handgun, with a hunting rifle, with a shotgun...

You do NOT need an AR-15 for defense, that seems far more an OFFENSIVE weapon, and with good reason...it IS an offensive weapon.

"When you're talking about restricting self-defense, you're already talking lack of freedom"

Again that's a logical mistake that comes with conflating "guns" and "defense." I am not restricting your right to defend yourself by saying weapons that are military-grade and often used for offensive, murderous purposes, in this country and around the world, shouldn't be allowed--I am restricting your right to thos guns, NOT to the fundamental right to Defense ITSELF.

Be it with handguns, aluminum bats, a crossbow, guard dogs, a security system, or whatever else you wish to employ, there are PLENTY, *PLENTY* of ways to defend yourself in this day and age without resorting to military-grade weapons of mass destruction, to dig up an old term.

"As for the argument somebody made (I can't remember who -- possibly you, obi, but it's made all the time, anyway) that guns are no longer an effective defense against government oppression, because the government has tanks, drones, etc., it doesn't really work. It's true that if the government wants to kill me badly enough, they'll definitely be able to, and I can't stop them. But killing me, an American citizen, with a tank or a drone will be a VERY PUBLIC and EXTREMELY controversial thing to do."

I have to stop you there as it's there I feel your point becomes silly--the government may, in your mind, come after you and kill you (NONE of you gun advocates have ever yet explained WHY, *WHY* the government we have in place today would ever, EVER do that, not because they're nice people or competent but simply because they're, well, largely incompetent and at that benefit IMMENSELY from the corporate America social order we have so far, so they have really nothing to gain and everything to lose by going Kristallnacht, so unless you're suggesting the US government secretly has it out for you, the average white working-class American and is going to ethnically-cleanse all such people...no, I take that back, if that is your stance, you need moment in a dark, cool rubber room to calm down for a bit.) ;)

But what's just as silly about that statement is the logic employed--
It's good to have guns because, surely, government soldiers won't attract attention?
And if they come you can fight?
But the US government would NEVER send in tanks or drones in this sort of imaginary situation...because THAT would be a PR problem?
Never mind government agents who would be photographed and filmed all over the place in this age where everything is a phone or a camera and hooked into the Internet, so ANY government activity against the People would be seen and uploaded over and over and it'd be international news within hours, if things were SLOW...

No, that's perfectly OK from the perspective of the US government, but sending in tanks and drones, that's where it gets embarrassing for them???

O.o


"On the other hand, if I weren't allowed to have (serious) guns, then they could kill me pretty easily and quietly with guns, and either hide it or come up with some story and minimize the controversy."

NO.
I'm sorry, semck, but your point just doesn't tread water logically.
NOT in this age of cameraphones and the Internet.
The government canNOT kill you and your neighbors "quietly" with government agents.

This is not the movies...

If this is the age where every little faux pa of Prince Harry or Michelle Obama winds up on the front page, and someone uses a camera phone to record Mitt Romney speaking in private about the "47 percent," do you honestly think that the US government, one of the loudest and most sloppy organizations in the world, can kill a neighborhood of their own people and do it quietly, NEVER MIND your rationale as to WHY they would ever, ever, EVER want to do this, EVER (and I want an explanation as to why, semck and fellow gun owners--you've used this defense TO DEATH--no pun intended--and so I feel it warrants an explanation...explain to us all why your position does NOT smack of conspiracy theory lunacy or of someone who's read one too many Tom Clancy novels--with one being one too many--and tell us WHY WHY WHY WHY *WHY* the US government, which gets so very wealthy from all the lobbying and jockeying that goes on in modern politics, who get better health care and protection than anyone else in the country, why such people who are already in one of the best and most privileged positions human beings have ever been in as leaders on this planet...tell us WHY they would ever, ever, EVER want to upset that balance to take on their own people in a fight or strike? YOU opened the bottle on this one, and if you's going to be your justification to own military-grade weapons, it HAS to be a good explanation, so please, explain...WHY?)"

Any argument that wants to equate Obama and the liberal agenda with Hitler and the Third Reich isn't going to be taken seriously. Yes, the chance that Obama and the Democrats want to enslave the US population after taking all our guns away is greater than 0%. As a numbers guy, I'm cool assuming they don't want to do that. Therefore, gun control and assault rifle bans make total sense to save lives. I know the conspiracy nuts just believe this logic will doom us to government servitude, but their views aren't easily changed by reason.

It's the same argument as the argument about societal breakdown. Just because we have achieved a free government, with the rule of law and respect for human rights, doesn't mean that situation will hold. As a good liberal, you should be the first to recognize that the US hasn't always been perfect in the past. The most obvious way this could happen is by omission of protection, rather than outright commission of evil acts. The government has already essentially quit enforcing its sovereignty along some of the Mexican border, leaving US citizens there to fend for themselves against encroachment from drug cartels and people-trafficking. Likewise, the blacks in the South at one time were left to their own devices, abandoned by the rest of the country. Would have been nice for them to have means for their own defense--in fact, Martin Luther King and his fellow activists did have armed protection, and not from the government!

Big Brother government is not always going to be able to provide or be interested in your protection.

No, y2k, the superstitious fear that liberals have of guns is the thing immune to reason.

I'm being unreasonable in fearing that nutcases having access to assault rifles will result in innocent people dying that might not otherwise die?

I'm not scared of the gun, it's just an inherent and WARRANTED understanding that it only takes one lunatic with heavy artillery to cause massive damage in our modern world. And there are a lot of lunatics out there. So your argument becomes "Deal with the lunatics, not the guns." That's part of solving the problem as well, but it doesn't prove you should leave guns untouched. Another argument you go for is "They'll get the guns anyway." I'm pretty sure it would stop at least one nut from getting access to that gun with stricter gun control. Once those two arguments move aside, gun advocates just get loud and scary and don't put forth anymore valid points for having less gun control. I'm all ears though.

" 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?"

Not at all.

I know a good friend of mine (who is an Army man and fiercly pro-gun, so he and I have this discussion all the time) who owns guns...I want to say a shotgun and a handgun, but beyond that I couldn't tell you, as it was about midnight and we'd had a few that night (we obviously weren't using them or anything, he has them in his upstairs and my other friend and I just got to see them for a couple minutes, and they were unloaded and everything...)

And he's responsible.

I have another friend (libertarian, as is the first guy, interestingly enough) and she's also pro-gun...I don't know if she has one or herself or not, but her father had them, so it's possible...again, I was there to talk and drink, not to handle guns. ;)

My dad I've already said handled/owned a gun when he was part of the California Highway Patrol, and now owns a crossbow rather than a gun as a gun would upset my mother, as she's upset by, well, something popping up on screen when she goes on the Internet, or an earwig in the kitchen, so she's easily startled...) :)

I would say I wouldn't mind if he had a gun (and for all I know he has one) as he has experience using one responsibly, except he has a bad temper and gets angry quick, so just from that standpoint I'd rather he didn't have one.

A couple other friends I believe have parents who own them...

And then there was this one fellow who WAS the "stereotypical profile of wild-eyed fanatic" who was a rather miserable person who'd insult everyone who didn't believe in his "New World Order"/Ron Paul/Obama is Hitler nonsense (he must've HATED tomatoes, lol!) and has a ton of guns in a cache in Arizona, which is where he now lives, all while insisting Arizona has had no problems with racial profiling (different conversation) and that it's one of the most progressive, perfect places ever, and that everything would be solved if everyone just had a Wild West mentality and carried guns in holsters everywhere and sees no problems with people owning bazookas or grenade launchers for "home defense."

So, I think I can score him in the "BAD" category. ;)

Now, that'd be 3 good gun owners past and present vs. 1 bad one...

3/4 is a good ratio, for sure, and the ratio I expect is true in this country, or if we wanted to be optimistic, 4/5 or so.

That being said, as I told one of the female owner this past week in a gun control argument, there can be 4 Hers, who would be completely 100% responsible and never hurt a fly unless it was in complete self-defense, and 1 Bad Owner, and the Bad Owner would STILL outweigh her...

Because it's with bad owners you get the James Holmes and Adam Lanzas and Columbine kids and so on (and yes, I know Lanza took his mother's guns and didn't own them himself, I'm just saying that even if those who possess guns and would use them for ill are in the minority, that minority by their destructive capability still outweighs the majority and ruins things for them a bit as we have to act in accordance with that minority's propensity for destruction...simply put, sometimes a couple bad apples spoil things for everyone.)

Of the people I've met and know on here, aside from the Arizona Nutjob (if you don't think he's nutty, PLEASE, DO try and explain why you need a freaking GRENADE LAUNCHER for "self-defense," unless you're Denny McClain, the Terminator, or Rambo himself...no! lol!) and possibly krellin (just because I'm not so sure how stable krellin is, assuming he's not just trolling everyone by sounding like a drunken angry fool) I would trust all of them happily to own guns within reason, no problem.

But again, I take into account that minority, because it's not those people, or you people (what do you mean "you people" lol?) that would cause a problem, hence the reason we're having a civil discussion about this rather than someone flying off the handle and grabbing their shotgun to shoot me or those like me instead...

YOU are not the problem.
Sadly, others are.
And sadly, sometimes they ruin it for everyone else.
The minority voice always needs to be protected, but likewise, the majority of good-doers need to always be protected from the minority of those who would do ill...

And sometimes that means a whole-sale restriction.

I still don't think any of you have a valid reason to own a military grade weapon...
But if you did, in all likelihood, you probably wouldn't be a problem.
That being said, you HAVE to realize those in possession with them ARE the problem.
And THEY need to be stopped.

So just as we need a closer examination of mental illnesses (as let's not forget the other half of this coin) we need to curb, in a society where you forfeit your right to vigilante justice to the State, a BIT of that destructive ability...

And even then, taking away a few kinds of weapons is NOT tantamount to taking them all away, nor is it tantamount to taking away your ability to defend yourself.

"I'm not scared of the gun, it's just an inherent and WARRANTED understanding that it only takes one lunatic with heavy artillery to cause massive damage in our modern world. And there are a lot of lunatics out there."

Once again, +1 y2k for putting my 3 good owners vs. 1 bad one into perspective concisely.

Are you familiar with the Aaron Swartz case that is in the news? He was essentially killed by the government, though not in a way where he could have used a gun to defend himself.

Your proportions are all wrong. The incidence of shootings like the one in Sandy Hook is extremely small. Your acquaintance--the one "bad" owner--hasn't committed a crime (besides a thoughtcrime against your political correctness--and there is no evidence that Holmes or Lanza were guilty of being that type either). The real "bad" gun owners--the ones who go out and shoot up people--are very, very few.

You would deny the 99.9% the good of self-defense to prevent the evil of the 0.1%

You're right, the number is probably very, very small; it takes a very sick mind to take life like that. It's definitely greater than zero though, I think we can agree on that.

Yes, I would deny 299,990,000 people of assault rifles if 1000 other people would want to use them to maliciously murder innocent people. Because those 299,990,000 have no legitimate need for them. If they think they do have a need, cue the government conspiracy nut claim.

299,999,000*. Was going for the even 300,000,000. You get the point though.

Just because you choose to ignore the other reasons, doesn't mean they don't exist.