Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

[Akar]

I think what he's saying is that making a list of eligible voters is a completely different topic than a registry of guns and gun owners.

Also the way you say "For compliance" is very suspect.

[paleologos]

Not a single insurgency has been won with conventional military (without genocide).

It is simplistic to presume that the US Federal government will only rely on brute force.
Political, economic and psychological means are at their disposal in abundance.

I mean sure if you get Feds to act like Dierlenwager division and wipe out half the population, that would count as a tactical victory, but I don't think this would be considered even by most deranged statists.

It is simplistic to presume that in case of a suspension of the 2nd amendment after some crazy event (think Sandy Hook) the insurgents will be half the population.
But go ahead, keep imagining things if it makes partisanship feel good about itself.

It seems to me that none of you have noticed that the various police units across the US are becoming more and more militarized with time.
In every single case of standoff between gun enthusiasts and government agencies, the civilians lost and in some cases they all died, while in others the few survivors ended up in federal prisons for life.

Yet Virginians won, and anti-gun legislature is now de-facto dead.

When I said "standoff between gun enthusiasts and government agencies" I meant a shooting standoff, like Wako, Texas.
Virginians won with their votes, not their (puny, nerfish) guns, which was the point that I was trying to make from the start.
The best defense against tyrannical is your vote, and as a general rule of thumb, if you are going to antagonize anyone, it is prudent to choose a field of antagonism where your hand is strongest, or you lose.

Because there was no insurgency to begin with.

Because the Allies did not rely exclusively on brute force.
Political, economic and psychological means were at their disposal in abundance.
And there was the Marshall Plan.
Truth be told, if the 2nd Amendment is suspended due to a national security related emergency, the US backwoods will need a "Marshall Plan" of their own.

And ordering them to kill their own countrymen, possibly relatives, friends and neighbors would be a great way to get coup'd.

That is historical illiteracy, it happened in the Civil War and Abe's administration did not get "coup'd".
Abe got whacked, but his side kept his results.
And there will be no civil war over gun rights, there is no chance of such thing happening.

Again, US government could, in theory, glass its own territory and infrastructure. I don't think it can be called a victory. Nor would all the military obey de-facto criminal orders.

Again, historical illiteracy, think Sherman's March to the Sea.

Except that military typically comes from the same yahoos and yahoos on insurgent side typically have military experience in same structures.

Perhaps, but in case of a draft the types in question will side with the faction that can pay them, feed them and let them play with the fancier toys.

[Love Mountain]

I think what he's saying is that making a list of eligible voters is a completely different topic than a registry of guns and gun owners.

We maintain vast banks of information through the government. If you’re worried about the government knowing things about you, that ship has sailed by a couple decades ago.

[/quote]Also the way you say "For compliance" is very suspect.[/QUOTE]

That’s what gun manufacturers want you to think, they are the biggest beneficiaries of lax regulations.

[Akar]

I find issue with the argument that I can't dislike the government knowing more and more things about me just because they already know things about me. I don't know what level of information I'm comfortable with the government having on me exactly, but I don't like the idea of them knowing every single gun I own. It feels weird. Gun manufacturers might benefit from lax regulations, but by that logic so do their customers who are clearly able to get the weapons they wanted.

[Love Mountain]

I find issue with the argument that I can't dislike the government knowing more and more things about me just because they already know things about me. I don't know what level of information I'm comfortable with the government having on me exactly, but I don't like the idea of them knowing every single gun I own. It feels weird. Gun manufacturers might benefit from lax regulations, but by that logic so do their customers who are clearly able to get the weapons they wanted.

I'm not saying you can't dislike it government surveillance or how much they know about you, merely that the point is rather moot. The difference would be that the government would now know who owns a firearm and who doesn't. I also don't see what the problem is if you are using a firearm as usual, what this would do is increase paperwork and actually make gun owners accountable for lost/stolen guns that they don't report.

I also don't consider ease of firearm ownership to be of utmost importance. It's really not. So long as it is reasonably feasible to become a gunowner then I'm not going to split hairs and I don't think anyone should either. Basic licensing, identity verification, and purchase reporting from FFLs at the point of purchase is reasonable enough, and infinitely preferable to the year-long wait times that many gunowners have to go through to own SBRs. So if we want to argue about easy of purchase, fair enough, but gunowners already put up with plenty without the country becoming a tyranny.

[Heathen Hammer]

It is simplistic to presume that the US Federal government will only rely on brute force.
Political, economic and psychological means are at their disposal in abundance.

Chu Hoi was incredibly ineffective.

It is simplistic to presume that in case of a suspension of the 2nd amendment after some crazy event (think Sandy Hook) the insurgents will be half the population.
But go ahead, keep imagining things if it makes partisanship feel good about itself.

It doesn't have to be 2nd amendment. Income inequality, lower living standards to due to neoliberal and globalist policies, unpopular social policies, the list could go on.

When I said "standoff between gun enthusiasts and government agencies" I meant a shooting standoff, like Wako, Texas.
Virginians won with their votes, not their (puny, nerfish) guns, which was the point that I was trying to make from the start.

Virginians won when they showed up en mass armed to the teeth, Democrats saw that and ran with tails between their legs.

The best defense against tyrannical is your vote, and as a general rule of thumb, if you are going to antagonize anyone, it is prudent to choose a field of antagonism where your hand is strongest, or you lose.

Plenty of tyrants in history were elected.

Because the Allies did not rely exclusively on brute force.
Political, economic and psychological means were at their disposal in abundance.
And there was the Marshall Plan.
Truth be told, if the 2nd Amendment is suspended due to a national security related emergency, the US backwoods will need a "Marshall Plan" of their own.

No, it is because there was no insurgency to counter. Except for the one in Baltic States and Ukraine which continued for decades.

That is historical illiteracy, it happened in the Civil War and Abe's administration did not get "coup'd".
Abe got whacked, but his side kept his results.
And there will be no civil war over gun rights, there is no chance of such thing happening.

This won't be state vs state. You'd ask people from predominantly Southern states to kill Southerners and via versa for other areas.
Not everyone will be willing to commit mass murder.

Again, historical illiteracy, think Sherman's March to the Sea.

Yes, and nobody sane calls it a good thing.

Perhaps, but in case of a draft the types in question will side with the faction that can pay them, feed them and let them play with the fancier toys.

So now you want to force people to go into the military and commit war crimes against their own population and that will somehow work.

[paleologos]

Nobody really believes that Americans need to be "forced" into the military and commit war crimes.
All you need to say is "patriotism" and they'll do it.
As far as I know US soldiers are sworn to defend the nation against "all enemies, foreign and domestic".
If the government say "that's it, we are taking your AR-15s" and they are willing to go full on Thatcherite and all the way, there's not much to stop them.
And yes, there will be blood but there is blood anyway due to crazy people with guns shooting up places as it is.

I am not making that case that it should happen.
I am making that case that it can happen and there will be people to justify it and even feel good about it and some of them will even be republicans.

[Heathen Hammer]

Nobody really believes that Americans need to be "forced" into the military and commit war crimes.
All you need to say is "patriotism" and they'll do it.
As far as I know US soldiers are sworn to defend the nation against "all enemies, foreign and domestic".
If the government say "that's it, we are taking your AR-15s" and they are willing to go full on Thatcherite and all the way, there's not much to stop them.
And yes, there will be blood but there is blood anyway due to crazy people with guns shooting up places as it is.

I am not making that case that it should happen.
I am making that case that it can happen and there will be people to justify it and even feel good about it and some of them will even be republicans.

If you view life as a video-game, where soldiers are units to mindlessly follow orders, then maybe.
But in reality there are plenty examples in history when military turned against government under various circumstances.
When you chose between a tyrannical (if it aims at taking guns) government and "gun nuts", former could also be viewed as domestic enemy by predominantly right-leaning military. I'm not saying that is what should happen, but just like you said, there will be people who'd feel this way and some of them would even call themselves liberals.

[The spartan]

Setting aside your relentless fussing about my God-given super specialness, my line on firearms is drawn at the intersection between weapons which are necessary to arm a militia (as per the Constitution) and weapons which, were they to be openly accessible to crooks and extremists, would threaten the "free state" (also as per the Constitution).

I am not saying you have God-given super specialness, you are implying that by saying you know the "proper" limits to firearm ownership. You have done nothing to demonstrate why ARs are 1) necessary for a militia in a way other restricted weapons aren't; and 2) Why ARs would not facilitate crooks and extremists in a way you are claiming restricted weapons would. The Constitution is not going to help you with that.

1. I did not say that supporting open access to fully automatic weapons was "absurd"; I said that I was prepared to compromise with the libs on keeping them restricted.

Compromise?! You mean sell out our 2A rights?! What a shill. For someone as hardline as you on access to firearms, you can compromise on some aspects of it real easy.

2. I did not say that removing access the assault weapons would equate to a complete and instantaneous tyranny; I said that it would form the basis for the removal of further rights in future (because the 1A and 2A are the foundational rights).

I never said you said that. You are implying that restricting sales of ARs is on the pathway to tyranny; which I can only take to mean in this thread that you are saying that Libs restricting AR sales is a step toward tyranny or a threat to the 2A or whatever. But again, we have already done this with the FAWB and it didn't increase government tyranny or alter the 2A. So, it is apparently not as easy as "this follows this", now is it? It's just another instance of the partisan chant "they are going to do it this time for sure!" that we get every single election cycle.

The mainstream debate about armament controls concerns where the line should be drawn, not whether there should be a line at all. Acting as if I've ever rejected the premise that some regulations are necessary is disingenuous. As is the pretense that whatever standard you adhere to wouldn't be subject to the same criticisms you've made above. My disagreement with the libs. is not - and never has been - about the need for some controls, it's about what those controls should be and why.

I wasn't the one claiming to note a huge threat to the 2A, so I would be confused as to why I would be getting that criticism. You, on the other hand, seemed quite sure and quite passionate about ARs and their relation to the 2A, so I would read that an assume you have a well thought out understanding of ARs and why they would be a limit. That apparently wasn't the case. And I never acted as if you rejected the premise of some level of regulation; just that despite your alarmist claims about the 2A, you don't really have a rational behind why ARs are the key limit to the 2A. Instead you reference "weapons which are necessary to arm a militia" and "weapons which, were they to be openly accessible to crooks and extremists, would threaten the 'free state'" of which both criteria have nothing specifically to do with ARs. I was not trying to argue a clear line for the 2A; you were.

I'm drawing a distinction between explosives which are designed to destroy lives (grenades, mortars, rockets) and civilian tier explosives like fireworks or party poppers.

Oohhh. You mean like the difference between a rifle and a "military-style assault weapon"?

I'm using AR as shorthand for all assault rifles, not just ArmaLite Rifle models. That's because the Dem. proposals relate to all "assault weapons" (by which they mean semi-automatic weapons).

I am as well; battle rifles are different than ARs so I would have to see how the proposed legislation would try to define these weapon systems. And the Dems would not possibly go after all semi-auto weapons; that is truly next level insanity. That is like, the majority of the US's nearly 400 million firearms. The Dems would need to take severe amounts of control to even expand law enforcement to the levels needed to begin enforcing such restrictions. I think my grandpa's M1 Garand is safe from the big scary Libs, but thanks for the concern.

If you want to make the case for why the open availability of machine guns and mortars are necessary for the formation of militias (and/or personal protection), I'd be willing to hear it. My position has always been that access to semi-automatic firepower (from rifles) is the minimum requirement for the formation of meaningful militias because it's the lowest (and most basic) form of military capability; anything less would be functionally ineffective militarily. The reason that many libs. disagree with me on this is because they falsely believe that the 2A was designed exclusively for personal protection and hunting, not resistance against state tyranny.

Well no, my argument wasn't trying to say there there is a specific weapon system necessary for the formation of a militia; but the formation of a militia is an organizational thing not a weapons thing. What you are actually arguing for isn't the ability to "form" a militia, you could do that with muskets if you wanted, you are arguing for a certain level of combat potency (self-loading rifles). Now, there are plenty of militia who actually exist in the real world, so you can take a look at them for inspiration as to what weapons are "necessary" (I guess up to opinion?) for them when fighting a military: it's every single weapon they can get their hands on. If a militia group in Syria is stuck with only ARs, they are in a real sorry spot just against the Syrian army or their proxies. That militia group would most likely be asking for anti-vehicle guided missiles right out the gate, but yes, they would also very much want mortars and grenade launchers. Now, imagine the organization group your militia is up against is the US army, or the national guard, or some enhanced version of the ATF (they needed more funding to go out and take those hundreds of millions of guns from citizens) and thinking ARs are the limit of "what is neccesary" for a militia to resist them.

They also seem to disregard the well-known fact (as sourced by Akar) that the majority of gun crime is committed with handguns (not ARs) in urban areas which already have restrictive firearm codes.

Well of course, because their reasoning is much like yours is for limiting what weapons citizens should have: "weapons which, were they to be openly accessible to crooks and extremists, would threaten the 'free state'". That's pretty much how they would phrase it. They just seem to think ARs are included in there and you don't; but your reasoning for dismissing machine guns, mortars and grenade launchers is virtually the same. Btw, how many homicides are committed every year with explosives? According to the FBI, it seems to be in the single digits for the years they list. So what exactly is your justification for limiting explosive weapon systems?

What you're actually doing is demanding that my personal views be beholden to an impossible, objective standard on firearm limitations. Then no matter where I draw the line, you can hector me about it (hence why you introduced the ad absurdum argument about mortars and grenades).

I'm sorry, wanting you to clarify why ARs meet that sweet balance between "militia's need it" and "too powerful for crooks to have" is an impossible standard? If you are fuzzy on why they are then maybe you shouldn't have such a hardline position on it. Also, claiming that bringing up mortars and grenade launchers in regards to what a militia would need or want is ad absurdum is absurd. Maybe if I had tried to pitch nukes you would have a point; militias having mortars or grenade launchers is not really fanciful or extreme.

So you accuse me of fearmongering about terrorists if I agree with 2A limits and you accuse me of fearmongering about the erosion of constitutional rights if I don't.

What do you mean "if you agree with the 2A"? You can't "agree" with it, you are just giving me your interpretation of it. You already said you don't care what SCOTUS says on the matter and this is your own opinion, so it's just your ideas on where you think limits in the 2A should be. I called you out on using the same type of argument as the gun control activists you dismiss when stating why heavier weapons should be restricted (bad guys and terrorists will use them!), but that is just to show that you picked ARs because that is where you heard the battle was at and not that you arrived to ARs as a limit of actual criteria.

I must say, even by the standards of your vendetta against my alleged "hackery", these attempts to have your cake and eat it are a tad too transparent for my liking.

Don't worry I don't dream to ever match your level of double standards (infeasible promises being made in the primaries?! what a scandal!). I bow to your partisan kingliness.

Yes, yes, I know you're triggered (geddit? )

*He cackles while adding another mark to his 'win' column*

I didn't say that the "libs are evil"; I think that the liberals who inadvertently set themselves against certain rights facilitate or enable evil.

Hm, I don't think I have personally seen anyone say "orange man bad" in an unironic way before. How many times have you said it on here, ironically?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I am not about to argue about "the creeping authoritarianism of European governments" in this thread. I would just say: learn more about geopolitics if you want to know where the "authoritarian" countries are.

I'm glad you agree with me in principle that people who want to ban the sale of assault weapons believe that assault weapons are inappropriate for private ownership (and by extension would prefer it if civilians had no access to them).

Sure, and people who want to ban government recognition of gay marriage believe that homosexuals deserve lesser legal status What's your point?

I've never said that the FAWB was as bad as an enforced buyback or recovery programme; that doesn't mean that it wasn't a lamentable encroachment on the 2A or that it wouldn't have had long term consequences had it stuck.

No, it just means it wasn't that big of a threat and that restrictions on gun sales cannot be assumed to progress into more controls. And that was from an actual bill passed in congress. Dems chances in 2020 for Congress is anything but certain right now, so your stance seems to be "the Dems are just going to do this somehow if they get a president in office". And hey, if they don't need congress and just need a Dem president to be a threat to the 2A, I guess a Dem president would just always be a threat if elected. Man, how convenient for you, huh?

Let's hear this supporting argument in favour of unregulated mortars and grenades then.

I don't think mortars or grenades should be unregulated, but for different reasons than the capabilities of private militias. If I were to use your criteria of "militia need enough fire power to resist government agents", I would be for much less regulation on mortars and grenades.

You talking about the "systems of government" set up by the men who used a well regulated militia to secure a free state and then enshrined in law a guarantee that the people had the right to rise again against tyranny if necessary?

Are you really throwing the Founding Fathers at me now?

You have no idea what the position of the Founding Fathers would be and you would be presuming a lot to say they would align with you.

Yeah, thankfully there are still some people who want to conserve those rights from the machinations of gasping progressives.

Pro-tip; in the year of our lord 2020 the political Right in the US prescribe no more to Conservatism than the US liberals do Liberalism. They like the parts they agree with and don't like the parts they don't agree with. After all, the "establishment" has failed the people, has it not? The current system is what got us here, isn't it? The president should have more power to do what is necessary, not more restrictions by other parts of government, right? It is like HH said, the US needs a new "August Caesar" to lead us into the future and out of liberal degeneracy and corruption. Not typical Conservative outlooks; Conservatives were the old fuddy duddies that got purged (primaried) from Republican ranks by the Tea Party circa 2010 and onwards for compromising with Dems too much.

This attempt to draw a false binary between position (1) "The 2A is in no danger" and position (2) "The 2A is in mortal danger" is a classic example of incrementalist logic. You hope* that by denying the existence of a middle ground between points 1. and 2. (where the FAWB sat) you can convince people to do nothing until point 2 has actually been reached (and it's too late).

Well no, it wasn't no danger/mortal danger, it was imminent danger/"incrementalism". I thought you agreed the 2A is under no immediate danger, you were saying "at some point, Dems will do something" but don't go on about how they would do so or what that would look like. My whole point was that if you can't even come up with a hypothetical on how Dems would even effect such a policy (that doesn't sound outlandish) I doubt there is much a Dem president could do to the 2A while in office and your rants about tyranny seem rather inapplicable. Like, what do you think is going to happen? The current SCOTUS is going to bend over for a Dem president? I would be shocked if Dems got both houses in November; have you seen the states that are up for Senate this year?

I see your point: if I'm going to oppose political deception I should also crush the dreams of children at Christmas time. It's the only way to maintain a consistent standard on lying.

Well no, you just need some standard rather than, you know, no standard. I get it: unkept campaign promises=bad evil lie when it is in the Dem primaries; but it is "meh, who cares, usual politics" when it's in the GOP primaries. We know that when you express repugnance while saying "you mean the Dems are lying?" it's not "lying" part of that statement you find repugnant.

You've already agreed with me that it is logical to assume that a desire to ban AR sales is usually tied to a belief that ARs are inappropriate for civilians to own. From this we can infer that the Ds. who want to ban the sale of ARs (almost all of the presidential candidates) also believe (in all probability) that America would be a better place without private AR ownership.

Ok, and what do the fantastical dreams of politicians have to do with real policy in the US, exactly? I am sure there are leading GOP members who would love to snap their fingers and make the US a Christian theocracy, but you don't see me ranting in threads about how the GOP will subject us to Christian oppression if elected (in their own "incrementalist" way, I assure you). You seem to have this paradigm that AR regulation is, by far, the most important single issue to these Dem candidates if they are willing to pursue it no matter how infeasible or unpopular the policy is. Truth is, Dems don't care enough about eradicating guns enough to sacrifice all their other platforms for it.

Disregarding your interest in slaying me (the unspecial, paristan hack) at all costs, your bad faith is rooted in your cakeism: on the one hand you argue that leading libs. don't really want to ban assault-weapons and that they lack the capacity to enact such reforms anyway

Bad faith implies I am being purposefully dishonest about a position of mine, and if you think that is the case I would appreciate knowing what I have been dishonest about. I am struggling to follow your accusations at me, though; I have argued leading libs don't really want to ban assault weapons? What does that mean? I agreed that Dems wanting to ban the sales is good indication that they don't think citizens should privately have ARs. The part I disagreed with was that they were so committed to the idea of private citizens not owning ARs that they were willing to force through (details unclear on how) draconian policy to achieve it. So in that sense I don't agree that Libs "really" want to "ban assault-weapons", if that is what you mean by that. If those policies weren't so horribly unpopular and impractical than yeah, I can imagine Dems would be more keen on achieving them, of course, but we don't live in that world.

on the other you denigrate the very people (gun rights activists and conservatives) preventing them from doing so.

I also denigrated gun control activists who want to get rid of guns in the US, but you sure seem keen to forget that.

As I said before, people should stay vigilante against such serpentine tricks.

Hssss, just listen to me, hsssss. When Hilary Clinton was Sssecretary of Ssstate she had Trump's presidential campaign investigated, hsssss.

Feel free. I'm not a Republican.

No, of course not, you are just cool with the Republican brand of tyranny

Sanders isn't a desperate candidate. Biden wasn't a desperate candidate when he concocted his firearm policy. In fact I think all of them have some sort of assault-weapons sale ban (minimally) as a campaign pledge.

Sanders was certainly a desperate candidate, even if his fanboys were unaware. It's kind of a winner-take-all game, if you aren't leading you should probably be worried. And are you still pretending to be ignorant of how American primaries work? See, this is what I mean when I bring up bad faith: you're obviously aware enough about politics to know candidates give hardline and strong stances on policies to appeal to the more limited pool of voters that invariably get's watered down in the general to appeal to the broader pool of voters there. You know this, yet you still want to play pretend otherwise.

There is no reason to assume that a resurrection of the FAWB would be implausible after the election. There is also no reason to assume that people like Sanders (now the Ds. most likely nominee) are being disingenuous when they say they want to find a path to making assault weapons unlawful to own in the US. The only reason this issue of lying came up is because calling Sanders a liar is the only defense you could mount after I'd proven his stated views on gun control (even though you keep demanding I recite said evidence).And as I told you right at the start of the exchange (around the time you were pining for the thousand year Trumpreich), I told you that sort of the argument wouldn't cut it with me.

Right, and I said I am only calling Sanders a liar insofar as I am calling any politician who makes primary promises they know they probably can't keep is a "liar"; which is not something I do. That was the point. It's primary politics that you wanted to boil down into either "he will pursue this policy no matter the costs or consequences" or "he is lying", which would be impossible position for Sanders to hold on all his platforms at the same time. The much more likely reason for a "bold" position on guns (illegal to own, period) would be to signal strength or confidence to Dem primary voters; much in the same way a GOP candidate will talk about reversing Roe v Wade. I guess that means they are going to dismiss SCOTUS to achieve that goal, huh?

I am indeed pleased that O'Rourke crashed and burned. It was a small victory for sanity.

I guess he didn't promise to destroy enough guns if he wasn't popular, eh?

It could equally be the case that Sanders is refusing to publically present his proposals in order to avoid the negative press and inevitable backlash he'd get (as you noted was the case with O'Rourke) which could damage his presidential bid. Once he's in the Oval Office we could very well see him attempt to act on his claims. So as I said, you're stuck with one of two choices: either Sanders is a liar or he's a constitutional threat.

You could literally level this claim at any politician about any policy ever. Watch: Trump is refusing to publicly present his proposal on getting rid of the 1A (in order to sue people who say bad things about him) in order to avoid the negative press and inevitable backlash he'd get which could damage his presidential bid. Once reelected in the Oval Office we could very well see him attempt to act on his claims to "open up libel laws". Speculating on secret positions politicians hold (especially "the enemy's") isn't a new or interesting game, so why play?

And an aside about liars: "liars" aren't a real category of people nor is it a synonym for "bad". Only gradeschoolers think that "lying" is always a bad thing or that that only bad people ever say something untrue. Every guy who has ever told his girlfriend that she looks pretty at a time when he honestly thinks she doesn't is not cast into the category of a dirty rotten "liar". Your attempts to try and emotional load "either Sanders is a liar (bad) or he's a constitutional threat (bad)" are silly.

See Akar's post. What we're discussing is open (or largely open) access to certain weapons, not whether weapons should be completely off limits. I don't mind if enthusiasts or specialized businesses have the ability to acquire licenses for heavier weapons.

Edit: seems like you've defeated your own argument anyway:

"But...that's what the 2nd Amendment is about: the access to certain firearms that can't be interfered with by the government (by requiring licensing). If you have to take a test and have a "clean record" to obtain the firearm, meaning the government has the choice to deny you the weapon, then that weapon isn't being protected by the 2nd Amendment."

What are you talking about? I thought the interpretations around the 2A currently are that the 2A prevents the Federal government from requiring licensing (in essence, government permission) for weapons considered protected by the 2A. The problem always seems to be what is and is not considered protected by the 2A as new weapons are invented over time that have to be considered and no one seems to actually believe that all weapons are protected, so lines have to be drawn. Poorly, it seems.

I didn't say that A necessarily leads to C. I said A is a necessary first step on the road to C for people (like Sanders) who support it. This "should be evident" on the basis that C requires A and is the stated objective for many libs (again including Sanders).

Sure, everything is an A step on the road to C; waking up in the morning is a necessary first step on the road to being dictator. That's the point of a slippery slope, you point to something and say "this is will lead to that" when you don't actually know it does. It can just be it's own thing, it doesn't have to go down a slippery slope. Ordering thoughts that way, A is a necessary first step on the road to C, is how you get to conspiracy theories; the government closing down public spaces "to prevent the spread of Covid 19" is a necessary step on the path to martial law. It's not technically incorrect, I would imagine closing public spaces is necessary to achieve martial law, it's just stupid to think that closing down public spaces is a clear indication that martial law is coming.

Orange man bad etc.

I forgot, tyranny is a partisan issue, only one side can do it. Off topic question: what's your favorite type of cake?

[Heathen Hammer]

You don't really need gun control for any reason other then abuse of power. Especially if party that is pushing it is known for other authoritarian leanings, with "democratic socialists" praising dictatorships.

[Cope]

I am not saying you have God-given super specialness

Oh really?

you are special

you are implying that by saying you know the "proper" limits to firearm ownership. You have done nothing to demonstrate why ARs are 1) necessary for a militia in a way other restricted weapons aren't; and 2) Why ARs would not facilitate crooks and extremists in a way you are claiming restricted weapons would.

Points 1 and 2 have already been answered repeatedly. I will probably end up answering them again in this post.

The Constitution is not going to help you with that.

>The Constitution isn't going to help in determining the meaning of a constitutional amendment.

Ok.

Compromise?! You mean sell out our 2A rights?! What a shill. For someone as hardline as you on access to firearms, you can compromise on some aspects of it real easy.

This is a repetition of the same ad absurdum argument ( ie. "any compromise is a betrayal!" / "there can be no limits!") which I've already addressed. In any case, if it were up to me I would allow automatic weapons (in fact all small arms), but that ship sailed before I was born and is more difficult to argue.

I never said you said that. You are implying that restricting sales of ARs is on the pathway to tyranny; which I can only take to mean in this thread that you are saying that Libs restricting AR sales is a step toward tyranny or a threat to the 2A or whatever.

Correct.

But again, we have already done this with the FAWB and it didn't increase government tyranny or alter the 2A. So, it is apparently not as easy as "this follows this", now is it?

The FAWB was itself a form of over encroachment by the state. Thankfully (because of conservatism) it expired.

It's just another instance of the partisan chant "they are going to do it this time for sure!" that we get every single election cycle.

That's because the D's are persistently vocalizing their desire to either remove or restrict certain civil liberties (including the 2A). Remaining vigilant against this threat is the duty of all citizens.

I wasn't the one claiming to note a huge threat to the 2A, so I would be confused as to why I would be getting that criticism.

I don't see what relevance that has. All line(s) drawn on weapon controls (including your own) are equally open to the same trade-off criticism (self-defence vs. criminality). Acting as if my position is uniquely susceptible to said criticism is disingenuous.

You, on the other hand, seemed quite sure and quite passionate about ARs and their relation to the 2A, so I would read that an assume you have a well thought out understanding of ARs and why they would be a limit. That apparently wasn't the case. And I never acted as if you rejected the premise of some level of regulation; just that despite your alarmist claims about the 2A, you don't really have a rational behind why ARs are the key limit to the 2A. Instead you reference "weapons which are necessary to arm a militia" and "weapons which, were they to be openly accessible to crooks and extremists, would threaten the 'free state'" of which both criteria have nothing specifically to do with ARs. I was not trying to argue a clear line for the 2A; you were.

As I've stated repeatedly throughout this thread, my reasoning is predicated on the idea that what the D's refer to as "assault weapons" constitute one of the essential (or basic) small arm components of all military formations (and I'm being generous here because most assault rifles you can buy in the US are not military tier at all). Nevertheless, it is simply a statement of the obvious to claim that you cannot have a militia without "military-style" weapons.

Oohhh. You mean like the difference between a rifle and a "military-style assault weapon"?

All rifles were designed to take life. Not all explosives were. Though yes, obviously there is a difference between, say, hunting rifles and military tier rifles (even though there is some crossover).

I am as well; battle rifles are different than ARs so I would have to see how the proposed legislation would try to define these weapon systems. And the Dems would not possibly go after all semi-auto weapons; that is truly next level insanity. That is like, the majority of the US's nearly 400 million firearms. The Dems would need to take severe amounts of control to even expand law enforcement to the levels needed to begin enforcing such restrictions. I think my grandpa's M1 Garand is safe from the big scary Libs, but thanks for the concern.

If the D's choose to use vague, fictional terms like "assault weapons", then we have no choice but to speculate on what they're referring to; minimally I would assume all assault rifles in addition to semi-automatic handguns with a >10 rd. mag. capacity. Grandpa's M1 (which can technically be classified as a battle rifle) might be included as well.

Well no, my argument wasn't trying to say there there is a specific weapon system necessary for the formation of a militia; but the formation of a militia is an organizational thing not a weapons thing. What you are actually arguing for isn't the ability to "form" a militia, you could do that with muskets if you wanted, you are arguing for a certain level of combat potency (self-loading rifles).

A militia, by definition, requires military capabilities. In the 21st century, access to assault rifles is the bare minimum that any regular ground force would need to be competitive in a combat zone. A disarmed popular front is a mob or a protest, not a militia.

Now, there are plenty of militia who actually exist in the real world, so you can take a look at them for inspiration as to what weapons are "necessary" (I guess up to opinion?) for them when fighting a military: it's every single weapon they can get their hands on. If a militia group in Syria is stuck with only ARs, they are in a real sorry spot just against the Syrian army or their proxies.

That militia group would most likely be asking for anti-vehicle guided missiles right out the gate, but yes, they would also very much want mortars and grenade launchers. Now, imagine the organization group your militia is up against is the US army, or the national guard, or some enhanced version of the ATF (they needed more funding to go out and take those hundreds of millions of guns from citizens) and thinking ARs are the limit of "what is neccesary" for a militia to resist them.

My position is predicated on the minimum requirements: "semi automatic firepower (from rifles) is the minimum requirement for the formation of meaningful militias because it's the lowest (and most basic) form of military capability; anything less would be functionally ineffective militarily." If you want to make the point that a militia needs access to light artillery or anti-tank weaponry to have any combat effectiveness, be my guest. You'll only be defeating your own point that you could form a militia "with muskets if you wanted".

Well of course, because their reasoning is much like yours is for limiting what weapons citizens should have: "weapons which, were they to be openly accessible to crooks and extremists, would threaten the 'free state'". That's pretty much how they would phrase it. They just seem to think ARs are included in there and you don't; but your reasoning for dismissing machine guns, mortars and grenade launchers is virtually the same.

As mentioned above, the trade-off between self-defense and criminality can be scrutinized wherever you draw your line(s). It is pretty ridiculous to argue that because we're all forced to confront this trade-off we're "virtually the same". This line of reasoning also contradicts your previous attempts to suggest that my standards were uniquely susceptible to the trade-off criticism.

In any event, my key difference with the libs. is that I view the 2A as a provision to facilitate a potential armed resistance against a tyrannical government (hence its mentioning of "militia" forces and the "free state"). The Biden tier position (a popular lib. view) that the 2A exists only for personal self-defense and hunting is a fabrication.

Btw, how many homicides are committed every year with explosives? According to the FBI, it seems to be in the single digits for the years they list. So what exactly is your justification for limiting explosive weapon systems?

The lack of homicides by explosives might have something to do with the fact that (a) access to military grade explosives is extremely limited and (b) explosives are usually unnecessary to commit homicide.

I'm sorry, wanting you to clarify why ARs meet that sweet balance between "militia's need it" and "too powerful for crooks to have" is an impossible standard?

Note the word "objective" in my comment; there is no objective answer to the trade-off question. I've clarified my reasoning more times than I care to remember.

If you are fuzzy on why they are then maybe you shouldn't have such a hardline position on it. Also, claiming that bringing up mortars and grenade launchers in regards to what a militia would need or want is ad absurdum is absurd. Maybe if I had tried to pitch nukes you would have a point; militias having mortars or grenade launchers is not really fanciful or extreme.

Again, the direction of your questioning was clearly toward absurdity. If I'd accepted the argument about mortars or grenade launchers, you'd simply have made an argument (as you in fact already have) about "guided missiles" or howitzers. Though as I've mentioned repeatedly my position is predicated on the bare minimum (rather than optimal or ideal) requirements for militarization.

What do you mean "if you agree with the 2A"? You can't "agree" with it, you are just giving me your interpretation of it. You already said you don't care what SCOTUS says on the matter and this is your own opinion, so it's just your ideas on where you think limits in the 2A should be.

Which, in effect, is what anyone who discusses the limits is doing.

I called you out on using the same type of argument as the gun control activists you dismiss when stating why heavier weapons should be restricted (bad guys and terrorists will use them!)

See above. "The trade-off between self-defense and criminality can be scrutinized wherever you draw your line(s). It is pretty ridiculous to argue that because we're all forced to confront this trade-off we're "virtually the same"."

but that is just to show that you picked ARs because that is where you heard the battle was at and not that you arrived to ARs as a limit of actual criteria.

I've already explained my reasoning for why ARs should remain legal (and legally purchasable). The "where the battle is at" argument is far more applicable to incrementalist libs. who would almost certainly move onto handguns if they got their way with ARs (just like they did in Europe).

Don't worry I don't dream to ever match your level of double standards (infeasible promises being made in the primaries?! what a scandal!). I bow to your partisan kingliness.

Bow lower.

*He cackles while adding another mark to his 'win' column*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hm, I don't think I have personally seen anyone say "orange man bad" in an unironic way before. How many times have you said it on here, ironically?

Are you trying to say that when you accused me of claiming that the "libs are evil" you were being ironic?

I am not about to argue about "the creeping authoritarianism of European governments" in this thread. I would just say: learn more about geopolitics if you want to know where the "authoritarian" countries are.

Meanwhile in the UK, a man is jailed for killing an armed home invader who threatened his family. So progressive.

Sure, and people who want to ban government recognition of gay marriage believe that homosexuals deserve lesser legal status What's your point?

That plenty of senior D's would prefer it if the US population was disarmed of ARs.

No, it just means it wasn't that big of a threat and that restrictions on gun sales cannot be assumed to progress into more controls. And that was from an actual bill passed in congress. Dems chances in 2020 for Congress is anything but certain right now, so your stance seems to be "the Dems are just going to do this somehow if they get a president in office". And hey, if they don't need congress and just need a Dem president to be a threat to the 2A, I guess a Dem president would just always be a threat if elected. Man, how convenient for you, huh?

Any president (single most powerful person on earth) who openly lamented popular access to ARs and connoted schemes to significantly limit that access would be a threat if elected, yes.

I don't think mortars or grenades should be unregulated, but for different reasons than the capabilities of private militias. If I were to use your criteria of "militia need enough fire power to resist government agents", I would be for much less regulation on mortars and grenades.

My position on mortars and grenade launchers is not that they're unnecessary for militias, it's that, given their criminal risk, they aren't immediately necessary (ie. they're above the bare minimum). By contrast, the availability of semi-automatic, intermediate firepower is immediately necessary.

Are you really throwing the Founding Fathers at me now?

Imagine raising the Founders in a discussion about the Constitution. Shocking.

You have no idea what the position of the Founding Fathers would be and you would be presuming a lot to say they would align with you.

My idea about what their position would be is predicated on the amendment - which creates explicit provisions for a popular defense against a militarized tyranny a la the Revolutionary War.

Pro-tip; in the year of our lord 2020 the political Right in the US prescribe no more to Conservatism than the US liberals do Liberalism.

It's Lord. With a capital L.

They like the parts they agree with and don't like the parts they don't agree with. After all, the "establishment" has failed the people, has it not? The current system is what got us here, isn't it? The president should have more power to do what is necessary, not more restrictions by other parts of government, right? It is like HH said, the US needs a new "August Caesar" to lead us into the future and out of liberal degeneracy and corruption. Not typical Conservative outlooks; Conservatives were the old fuddy duddies that got purged (primaried) from Republican ranks by the Tea Party circa 2010 and onwards for compromising with Dems too much.

Setting aside the fact that I don't believe I've ever argued for more executive power, my point really had nothing to do with party politics. Whether or not you think the activists/politicians trying to blunt the liberal offensives against the 2A are "true" conservatives is irrelevant.

Well no, it wasn't no danger/mortal danger, it was imminent danger/"incrementalism". I thought you agreed the 2A is under no immediate danger, you were saying "at some point, Dems will do something" but don't go on about how they would do so or what that would look like. My whole point was that if you can't even come up with a hypothetical on how Dems would even effect such a policy (that doesn't sound outlandish) I doubt there is much a Dem president could do to the 2A while in office and your rants about tyranny seem rather inapplicable. Like, what do you think is going to happen? The current SCOTUS is going to bend over for a Dem president? I would be shocked if Dems got both houses in November; have you seen the states that are up for Senate this year?

This is a recitation of the "don't be hawkish about civil liberties" argument. What's exhausting about it is that you'd be arguing the opposite of we were discussing the use of torture, detention without trial or NSA spying; in those circumstances, not only would you oppose the initial intrusion, you'd also perfectly understand the threat of incrementalism (eg. that the normalization mass surveillance will almost inevitably lead to the further erosion of privacy in the future). Similarly, the D's undeniably intention to move America closer to position 2 (as I outlined above) will inevitably facilitate their desire to move it closer still if they're given an inch.

Well no, you just need some standard rather than, you know, no standard. I get it: unkept campaign promises=bad evil lie when it is in the Dem primaries; but it is "meh, who cares, usual politics" when it's in the GOP primaries. We know that when you express repugnance while saying "you mean the Dems are lying?" it's not "lying" part of that statement you find repugnant.

Thanks for superimposing my views on to me. I barely even mentioned the GOP primaries on this forum when they were ongoing.

Ok, and what do the fantastical dreams of politicians have to do with real policy in the US, exactly? I am sure there are leading GOP members who would love to snap their fingers and make the US a Christian theocracy, but you don't see me ranting in threads about how the GOP will subject us to Christian oppression if elected (in their own "incrementalist" way, I assure you). You seem to have this paradigm that AR regulation is, by far, the most important single issue to these Dem candidates if they are willing to pursue it no matter how infeasible or unpopular the policy is. Truth is, Dems don't care enough about eradicating guns enough to sacrifice all their other platforms for it.

If there were GOP candidates/politicians who openly fantasized about transforming the US into a theocratic state, I would denounce them. I would also denounce their attempts to facilitate theocratic rule by the back door (ie. forcing people to pray in schools, refusing to teach evolution or demanding that homosexuals be excluded from the military etc). I don't even particularly approve of politicians who make pro-life arguments solely from a religious perspective. In fact, if you scroll back to the beginning of this exchange, you'll see that I mocked Rick Perry for expressing such views in his 2012 presidential campaign.

And don't pretend that the progs. don't cry about "Christian oppression" (or prospective Christian oppression) when they spend half their lives denigrating the Bible, Christian morality and any legislation (or prospective legislation) which is inspired by Christian reasoning. The very fact that you've already raised the issue of gay marriage (and complained about theocracy in the abortion threads) indicates to me that you do care about politicians who predicate parts of the legislative agenda on Scripture.

Bad faith implies I am being purposefully dishonest about a position of mine, and if you think that is the case I would appreciate knowing what I have been dishonest about.

About the fact that there are plenty of senior D's who want to eradicate "assault weapons" from civilian society and that this attitude poses a threat to the 2A.

I am struggling to follow your accusations at me, though; I have argued leading libs don't really want to ban assault weapons? What does that mean?

It means you have tried to downplay the statements/policy positions of leading libs. by claiming that their comments vis-a-vis gun control are just part of the political theatre - that they're red meat for Dem activists rather than genuine proposals.

I agreed that Dems wanting to ban the sales is good indication that they don't think citizens should privately have ARs. The part I disagreed with was that they were so committed to the idea of private citizens not owning ARs that they were willing to force through (details unclear on how) draconian policy to achieve it. So in that sense I don't agree that Libs "really" want to "ban assault-weapons", if that is what you mean by that. If those policies weren't so horribly unpopular and impractical than yeah, I can imagine Dems would be more keen on achieving them, of course, but we don't live in that world.

Glad you've finally admitted that the D's do actually want to ban "assault weapons". Took you long enough. Now tell me again how conspiratorial I am for opposing something that many D's openly wish they could do.

I also denigrated gun control activists who want to get rid of guns in the US, but you sure seem keen to forget that.

Denigrate them some more.

Hssss, just listen to me, hsssss. When Hilary Clinton was Sssecretary of Ssstate she had Trump's presidential campaign investigated, hsssss.

The jewel in your crown. Long may it glimmer in recognition of my fragile mortality!

No, of course not, you are just cool with the Republican brand of tyranny

Except I'm not. I've never excused neocon. warmongering or attacks against civil liberties.

Sanders was certainly a desperate candidate, even if his fanboys were unaware. It's kind of a winner-take-all game, if you aren't leading you should probably be worried.

At the time I wrote my last message, Sanders was leading. Claiming that his stated position on firearms was out of desperation is far-fetched (especially since I bet he's always held it).

And are you still pretending to be ignorant of how American primaries work? See, this is what I mean when I bring up bad faith: you're obviously aware enough about politics to know candidates give hardline and strong stances on policies to appeal to the more limited pool of voters that invariably get's watered down in the general to appeal to the broader pool of voters there. You know this, yet you still want to play pretend otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that Biden has every intention of trying to force a ban on AR sales through Congress if he has the numbers to do it.

Right, and I said I am only calling Sanders a liar insofar as I am calling any politician who makes primary promises they know they probably can't keep is a "liar"; which is not something I do. That was the point. It's primary politics that you wanted to boil down into either "he will pursue this policy no matter the costs or consequences" or "he is lying", which would be impossible position for Sanders to hold on all his platforms at the same time.

This is another false binary: there is a middle ground between pursuing a policy at all costs and lying. People understand that policy positions are ambitions or things that the candidates would like to try and get done. You're argument that Sanders, Biden etc. have no intention on even attempting to pass further firearms restrictions on ARs and are just lying for the sake of votes is inaccurate.

The much more likely reason for a "bold" position on guns (illegal to own, period) would be to signal strength or confidence to Dem primary voters; much in the same way a GOP candidate will talk about reversing Roe v Wade. I guess that means they are going to dismiss SCOTUS to achieve that goal, huh?

I do seem to remember rather a lot of liberal squealing (perhaps even from you) about the possibility of RvW being overturned now that the cons. have a majority on the court. But I guess only the libs. are allowed to feel anxiety over their political opponents stated positions.

I guess he didn't promise to destroy enough guns if he wasn't popular, eh?

O'Rourke is going to be Status Quo Joe's point man on firearm legislation if Trump is defeated. Not exactly an encouraging sign is it? Maybe I sang too soon about his demise. One should never underestimate the establishment's ability to resurrect failed candidates ( I bet Kamala Harris ends up as Biden's VP pick, just like Biden was O's pick).

You could literally level this claim at any politician about any policy ever. Watch: Trump is refusing to publicly present his proposal on getting rid of the 1A (in order to sue people who say bad things about him) in order to avoid the negative press and inevitable backlash he'd get which could damage his presidential bid. Once reelected in the Oval Office we could very well see him attempt to act on his claims to "open up libel laws". Speculating on secret positions politicians hold (especially "the enemy's") isn't a new or interesting game, so why play?

Despite the fact that Trump has a point that the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party (CNN, MSDNC, WaPo, NTY etc.) are slanderous and spread misinformation, if someone were to criticize the president for threatening the 1A for his remarks about libel laws, I wouldn't disagree with them.

And an aside about liars: "liars" aren't a real category of people nor is it a synonym for "bad". Only gradeschoolers think that "lying" is always a bad thing or that that only bad people ever say something untrue. Every guy who has ever told his girlfriend that she looks pretty at a time when he honestly thinks she doesn't is not cast into the category of a dirty rotten "liar". Your attempts to try and emotional load "either Sanders is a liar (bad) or he's a constitutional threat (bad)" are silly.

You've already claimed that Sanders was lying about his proposal to regulate assault weapons in a way which "essentially makes them unlawful to own". If your only excuse for this is to claim that "everyone does it [lies]", then there's nothing more to discuss.

What are you talking about? I thought the interpretations around the 2A currently are that the 2A prevents the Federal government from requiring licensing (in essence, government permission) for weapons considered protected by the 2A.

You're the one who brought up the idea that not every weapon which requires licensing is "banned". You then defeated your own point by highlighting (as you have done here) that this was irrelevant since the discussions about the 2A relate to weapons which do not or, should not, require "government permission" to own. Even in England you can own certain firearms if you're willing to jump through endless loops.

The problem always seems to be what is and is not considered protected by the 2A as new weapons are invented over time that have to be considered and no one seems to actually believe that all weapons are protected, so lines have to be drawn. Poorly, it seems.

Crikey, seems like he's getting the self-defense vs. criminality trade-off at long last!

Sure, everything is an A step on the road to C; waking up in the morning is a necessary first step on the road to being dictator.

Reduction ad absurdum (again).

That's the point of a slippery slope, you point to something and say "this is will lead to that" when you don't actually know it does. It can just be it's own thing, it doesn't have to go down a slippery slope. Ordering thoughts that way, A is a necessary first step on the road to C, is how you get to conspiracy theories; the government closing down public spaces "to prevent the spread of Covid 19" is a necessary step on the path to martial law. It's not technically incorrect, I would imagine closing public spaces is necessary to achieve martial law, it's just stupid to think that closing down public spaces is a clear indication that martial law is coming.

I've answered this point more times than I care to remember. The claims made by Ds justify the belief that their end goal or ambition is the eradication of "assault weapons" from civilian society; by extension we can expect any changes they do make to be designed with this objective in mind.

I forgot, tyranny is a partisan issue, only one side can do it. Off topic question: what's your favorite type of cake?

Flan, of course

[The spartan]

Oh really?

Isn't this cut out of question I was posing? I am sure you think you are very special.

>The Constitution isn't going to help in determining the meaning of a constitutional amendment.

Ok.

I don't think you are going to find the section on ARs being necessary to form a militia, that was your addition.

This is a repetition of the same ad absurdum argument ( ie. "any compromise is a betrayal!" / "there can be no limits!") which I've already addressed. In any case, if it were up to me I would allow automatic weapons (in fact all small arms), but that ship sailed before I was born and is more difficult to argue.

Well no, I am not trying to pose an absurd scenario but am trying to point out how weird your priorities around firearms are. On one hand you are arguing that if citizens don't have unrestricted access to ARs, they are dangerously at risk of government tyranny; on the other hand you are also arguing that even slightly heavier weaponry (such as non-absurd machine guns) are unnecessary and fairly easy to compromise on. The difference in ARs and machine guns are a whole lot less than "unrestricted access completely necessary" and "no big deal to ban".

The FAWB was itself a form of over encroachment by the state.

I am sure you would say so, yes.

Thankfully (because of conservatism) it expired.

Wait, was W. Bush a true conservative or an establishment RINO? I can never remember...

Also, it is important to note that that the real reason it expired was because the 10 year expiration was literally part of FAWB legislation. The tyranny!

That's because the D's are persistently vocalizing their desire to either remove or restrict certain civil liberties (including the 2A). Remaining vigilant against this threat is the duty of all citizens.

Ok, and the R's are persistently vocalizing their desire to do all kinds of restrictive/rights violating things. I guess you just think citizens shouldn't be as vigilant against those threats, huh? Or maybe, just maybe, trying to snipe quotes from opposition candidates and saying "Look! They say they want 'X' so it means they are willing to do 'Y' to achieve 'X' is a partisan hack thing to do. Remember all the times I referenced Trumps multiple quotes about wanting to casually commit war crimes as evidence of his goal of becoming a tyrant and his willingness to do it? No? Probably because I don't do that.

I don't see what relevance that has. All line(s) drawn on weapon controls (including your own) are equally open to the same trade-off criticism (self-defence vs. criminality). Acting as if my position is uniquely susceptible to said criticism is disingenuous.

Maybe because you are missing the point? I didn't introduce the trade-off (balancing weapons that are bare minimum necessary vs. what weapons criminals could have access to), you did, you just didn't notice that this paradigm is practically identical to what gun control advocates claim, you just think ARs fall under the "necessary" category and they don't. My views on gun control are more focused on trying to pragmatically handle the relationship of individuals, society, and weapons in today's day and age; not trying to predict what types of weapons would need to be unrestricted to keep a tyrannical government at bay.

As I've stated repeatedly throughout this thread, my reasoning is predicated on the idea that what the D's refer to as "assault weapons" constitute one of the essential (or basic) small arm components of all military formations (and I'm being generous here because most assault rifles you can buy in the US are not military tier at all). Nevertheless, it is simply a statement of the obvious to claim that you cannot have a militia without "military-style" weapons.

All rifles were designed to take life. Not all explosives were. Though yes, obviously there is a difference between, say, hunting rifles and military tier rifles (even though there is some crossover).

First off, there is no such thing as a "military tier" of rifles as you are using it here. Every single mechanism I can think of that is the staple of modern firearms had it's start with military application. The "essential", by which I can only take to mean "modern standard", feature of firearms would be if it were self-loading or not. While ARs are a type of self-loading rifle, the group is much broader than just ARs and would include my grandpa's M1 Garand. That Dems would try to push a bill banning all self-loading rifles is especially crazy. Secondly, I don't know where you are going with rifles/explosives. Again, it doesn't seem as if explosives are used in many violent crimes nor do you have a particularly compelling reason to suggest they would add a significant amount to the homicide count. You may see them used more in flashy terrorist attacks, but those are anomalies, no?

If the D's choose to use vague, fictional terms like "assault weapons", then we have no choice but to speculate on what they're referring to; minimally I would assume all assault rifles in addition to semi-automatic handguns with a >10 rd. mag. capacity. Grandpa's M1 (which can technically be classified as a battle rifle) might be included as well.

I am sure that is what you would, minimally, assume; it's part of that partisan paradigm to be as uncharitable as possible to the "opposition" with your assumptions while remaining charitable to "allies". Meanwhile in reality, we have an example of a bill that already existed (that you still seem to view as unacceptable anyways) to compare to what a future bill might look like should it even be proposed. Tell me: how did that bill handle classification? Was it by broadly targeting self-loading rifles?

A militia, by definition, requires military capabilities.

Yup.

In the 21st century, access to assault rifles is the bare minimum that any regular ground force would need to be competitive in a combat zone.

My position is predicated on the minimum requirements: "semi automatic firepower (from rifles) is the minimum requirement for the formation of meaningful militias because it's the lowest (and most basic) form of military capability; anything less would be functionally ineffective militarily." If you want to make the point that a militia needs access to light artillery or anti-tank weaponry to have any combat effectiveness, be my guest. You'll only be defeating your own point that you could form a militia "with muskets if you wanted".

Nope. There is no "bare minimum" to be competitive, it entirely depends on what weapons the competition is using and how "competitive" you intend on being (you don't need an AR to have "any combat effectiveness"). This isn't some theoretical thing, there are militias that operate right now who claim to be fighting tyrannical powers, some including against the US military. Do you think that the Taliban, YPG, or FARC believes that ARs are sufficient weapons to be "competitive" in their resistance? They continuously express a need for heavier weaponry in their resistance against who they see as tyrannical oppressors. I don't know exactly how potent of weapons you would need to violently resist tyranny from the US government, but ARs seem woefully inadequate given what I have seen from active militia groups across the world.

You'll only be defeating your own point that you could form a militia "with muskets if you wanted".

Well, that would depend on if you mean "form a militia" or "violently and effectively resist the US government"; those are two different standards.

As mentioned above, the trade-off between self-defense and criminality can be scrutinized wherever you draw your line(s). It is pretty ridiculous to argue that because we're all forced to confront this trade-off we're "virtually the same".

Or, you can disregard the trade-off given that guns seem to have little to do with self-defense or crime rates in our 21st century society and use other criteria for determining gun laws, you know, like the rest of the world.

This line of reasoning also contradicts your previous attempts to suggest that my standards were uniquely susceptible to the trade-off criticism.

I am pretty sure I declared the "get rid of guns" position as garbage pages ago; and I didn't say your standards were the same as gun control advocates, I said your arguments for limiting access to potentially necessary weapons was the same. Your standards are different.

In any event, my key difference with the libs. is that I view the 2A as a provision to facilitate a potential armed resistance against a tyrannical government (hence its mentioning of "militia" forces and the "free state"). The Biden tier position (a popular lib. view) that the 2A exists only for personal self-defense and hunting is a fabrication.

No you don't, you are fine with militia being too under equipped to facilitate effective armed resistance against a tyrannical government; as evident by current militias claiming to fight tyrannical powers.


You have also created an odd implication by implying that: unrestricted access to ARs is necessary for militia, militia is necessary to prevent tyranny, so I guess practically every other nation besides like, the US and Switzerland are doomed to tyranny as they don't have unrestricted access to ARs?

The lack of homicides by explosives might have something to do with the fact that (a) access to military grade explosives is extremely limited and (b) explosives are usually unnecessary to commit homicide.

a) there is no such thing as military grade explosives, explosives are fairly easy to obtain in the US; and b) then what is the problem of making them legal if they could be necessary in resisting tyranny and aren't used in many criminal homicides?

Note the word "objective" in my comment; there is no objective answer to the trade-off question. I've clarified my reasoning more times than I care to remember.

If your goal is to be equipped with competitive material to a tyrannical government (you are saying that is necessary, right?), then that heavily informs the "trade-off", yes. "Objective" would be to look at the weapons used by militia forces today to see how the combat is being carried out; not armchair general your way into guess what weapons combatants find necessary. This isn't like an all encompassing spectrum of anti-tyranny to criminal banditry, you are trying to accomplish a specific goal: have a militia equipped heavily enough to effectively and violently resist a tyrannical US government. If you are accepting a limitation on weapons necessary to accomplish that goal, you have sorta compromised the goal and admitted that being able to effectively conduct violent resistance against a tyrannical government is a position that can be compromised on (read: not that necessary, we can trade it off without risking tyranny).

Again, the direction of your questioning was clearly toward absurdity. If I'd accepted the argument about mortars or grenade launchers, you'd simply have made an argument (as you in fact already have) about "guided missiles" or howitzers.

You need to let go of this notion that mortars or grenade launchers (or grenades, even) are absurd things for a militia to have. You just have to look around at modern conflicts to see how inadequate just ARs are for militia involved in conflicts (Donbass, Syria, Sudan, Yemen)

Though as I've mentioned repeatedly my position is predicated on the bare minimum (rather than optimal or ideal) requirements for militarization.

Sounds like you are trying to pass off two different standards as one: you have a) bare minimum weapons necessary to form a militia "for militarization" (which doesn't require ARs), and b) weapons necessary to provide a certain level of combat efficacy (which would include ARs depending on how effective you intend on being). You aren't arguing on whether militias should be able to form or operate, you are advocating for a very specific level of combat efficacy militias should have access to (ARs, no explosives or machine guns). That is an arbitrary level of combat effectiveness that has no relation as to what militia's actually do when fighting in real conflicts. I mean, denying them grenades ffs. Now, if you intend for militia to only be capable of a rear echelon role, ARs would be sufficient for a militia operating just in support of more proper military forces, but then again, you wouldn't really need ARs for that either.

Which, in effect, is what anyone who discusses the limits is doing.

You got me on edge by trying to evoke the Founding Fathers at me.

See above. "The trade-off between self-defense and criminality can be scrutinized wherever you draw your line(s). It is pretty ridiculous to argue that because we're all forced to confront this trade-off we're "virtually the same"."

Also see above: the "trade-off" isn't a necessary or useful paradigm in forming gun laws and you should probably use something else. Though, I wasn't citing the trade-off as making "virtually the same" as gun control advocates; it was you using their exact same argument. Every argument you provided for limiting machine guns or grenades is copy-pastable to an argument for limiting ARs: "criminals can use them to hurt people", "the weapons aren't necessary for protection", "there would be significantly more homicides committed (with no evidence to suggest such)"

I've already explained my reasoning for why ARs should remain legal (and legally purchasable). The "where the battle is at" argument is far more applicable to incrementalist libs. who would almost certainly move onto handguns if they got their way with ARs (just like they did in Europe).

Totally not a slippery slope argument, no sir. What were the criteria for a slippery slope argument again?

1. An initial proposal (A). (restricting sales of ARs)
2. An undesirable outcome (C). (banning sales/ownership of handguns, eventually tyranny)
3. The belief that allowing (A) will lead to a re-evaluation of (C) in the future. ("would almost certainly move onto handguns if they got their way with ARs")
4. The rejection of (A) based on this belief. (restrictions on the sales of ARs is path to tyranny)

Bow lower.

All hail, king of the partisan hacks. Don't worry, it's not a title I am coveting.

Are you trying to say that when you accused me of claiming that the "libs are evil" you were being ironic?

However you are being when you say "orange man bad"; it's that whatever that level of non-literal is.

Meanwhile in the UK, a man is jailed for killing an armed home invader who threatened his family. So progressive.

Wow, you sure are right, that bare bones article (made up of 7 sentences) about a case that has minimal context sure proves that Europe is falling to authoritarianism; the defendant could have deserved jail time for all I know about that case. Fortunately authoritarian regimes do not exist by just having court cases sometimes resolved in a way you don't like, they exist by doing things like Orban in Hungary or Putin in Russia: consolidating unilateral power. Like I said, it's off-topic, but for those who care about geo-politics you will note that whether or not a state is authoritarian is much more related to how political power is transferred in that state (hence the inclination by authoritarians to remove term-limits or disregard elections) rather than what weapons civilians have widely accessible to them

That plenty of senior D's would prefer it if the US population was disarmed of ARs.

Glad you've finally admitted that the D's do actually want to ban "assault weapons". Took you long enough.

That's a super loaded (partisan) way of saying "believe civilians shouldn't have unrestricted access to ARs", but ok. Though to be fair to them, that seems to be the position of the vast majority of policy makers around the globe; unrestricted access to ARs ain't exactly a global standard. I mean, you are familiar with Brit policy, no? Would a policy of unrestricted access to ARs be considered mainstream or fringe?

Now tell me again how conspiratorial I am for opposing something that many D's openly wish they could do.

More of partisan, but very, given that you would never accept this type of reasoning were the barrel facing the other way. Were you so inclined to be reasonable I am sure you would agree that Trump would prefer if he did not have checks on his powers as president from congress or the courts. Though, if I came into a thread and said "hey, voting or supporting Trump puts the US on the path towards the tyranny of a president who has no checks on his power", you would undoubtedly show up to say Trump isn't posing an actual threat of tyranny by simply preferring things were different. You may even say that Trump hasn't made any real moves to tyrannical control. But, by using your simple reasoning here, Trump wouldn't even need to do or propose any particular policy or even have a plausible scenario of takeover, just the fact he wants there to be no checks on his power is proof enough that he and his supporters are/will put us on a incrementalist path to tyranny. You would not accept that as a valid claim against Republicans, only Dems.

Any president (single most powerful person on earth) who openly lamented popular access to ARs and connoted schemes to significantly limit that access would be a threat if elected, yes.

I mean, we do have a president who openly laments checks on his power and that he can't sue people for free speech, but I guess that just isn't a threat you are concerned with.

My position on mortars and grenade launchers is not that they're unnecessary for militias, it's that, given their criminal risk, they aren't immediately necessary (ie. they're above the bare minimum). By contrast, the availability of semi-automatic, intermediate firepower is immediately necessary.

I have no idea what this means. Again, there is no arbitrary "bare minimum", there is only a subjective judgement on how much firepower you want. Maybe by "immediately necessary" you are trying to say that militia can just mobilize into machine guns and grenade launchers (as they are necessary)? If that's the case, why wouldn't militia just have access to like, handguns, and then just mobilize into ARs (as they are necessary) in the same way? Not that I would know how a militia reacting to growing tyranny would be able to get the heavier equipment they need if it wasn't even accessible to them pre-tyranny. It seems like if your main goal here is to have militias equipped well enough to violently resist a tyrannical US government, they would need access to that equipment when they believe it is necessary to have not when the government tells them it is. The US public would just need to take violently criminal acts to the teeth as we already do with currently legal firearms (which the US public seems to find acceptable, mind you). If it makes you feel any better, by any indication; machine guns, mortars, and grenade launchers would likely be limited to criminal use in certain terrorist acts as they just aren't that practical for day-to-day criminal activity. And as you indicated earlier, data shows ARs, while used in such high-profile terrorist acts, ultimately contribute only a small amount to the yearly homicide rate; that would likely be the case with the machine guns, mortars, and grenade launchers as well.

Imagine raising the Founders in a discussion about the Constitution. Shocking.

Imagine referencing the Founders on what type of modern weapons militia's find necessary. Cringe.

My idea about what their position would be is predicated on the amendment - which creates explicit provisions for a popular defense against a militarized tyranny a la the Revolutionary War.

That's not what you wanted, the revolutionaries had access to quite comparable equipment to what the British were fielding at the time. You don't want modern militia to have access to such comparable equipment as their potential tyrants.

Setting aside the fact that I don't believe I've ever argued for more executive power, my point really had nothing to do with party politics.

Sure. Sure.

Whether or not you think the activists/politicians trying to blunt the liberal offensives against the 2A are "true" conservatives is irrelevant.

"Blunt the liberal offensive", see you always thought of this as a war. And, as we all know, all's fair in love and war, right?

This is a recitation of the "don't be hawkish about civil liberties" argument.

You would probably use the term "alarmist" when defending against claims that the GOP is moving us towards autocracy (no "don't be hawkish about civil liberties" here!); but isn't the real difference between "hawkish on civil liberties" and "alarmist" just a matter of what politics you prefer?

What's exhausting about it is that you'd be arguing the opposite of we were discussing the use of torture, detention without trial or NSA spying; in those circumstances, not only would you oppose the initial intrusion, you'd also perfectly understand the threat of incrementalism (eg. that the normalization mass surveillance will almost inevitably lead to the further erosion of privacy in the future).

Maybe you missed or are just ignoring my position here, but I would very much not be ok with the government violently seizing guns back from people; much as I am against detention without trial, torture, or illegal surveillance. I just reject your premise that Dems wanting some form gun control legislation (and your, suddenly, absent minded logic that Dems could just pass super-intense gun restrictions in congress no problem) of proof of their intention to violently seize guns later on (you know, the slipper slope); much in the same way you reject the premise that Trump's comments on torture and war crimes are proof of his intent to force draconian policies on the US. Seems like you are only concerned about "tyranny" when it comes from a specific source. Again, it's like when you say "you mean Libs were lying?" about primary promises; the focus of your contempt is not on the word "lying" (remember, Trump is acceptable in your opinion), it's "Libs".

Similarly, the D's undeniably intention to move America closer to position 2 (as I outlined above) will inevitably facilitate their desire to move it closer still if they're given an inch.

That's what a slippery slope is, yes. You are claiming that literally any gun control legislation is unacceptable because Dems will just use it to push on to their ultimate goals of violently seizing guns from citizens and achieving tyranny "if they're given an inch". This is like, textbook.

And I reject your claim that the "undeniable intention" of Dems is to violently seize guns from citizens.

Thanks for superimposing my views on to me. I barely even mentioned the GOP primaries on this forum when they were ongoing.

You were literally trying to score points on the concept that Dems were "liars" for making promises in the primaries they knew they probably couldn't keep if elected. Unless you are suddenly pretending like you don't know how the GOP primary went down, it's pretty clear that such "lies" are not really that big of a concern for you (I guess when they come from one specific side).

If there were GOP candidates/politicians who openly fantasized about transforming the US into a theocratic state, I would denounce them.

I mean, desperately wanting to repeal the 1954 Johnson Amendment, place the 10 Commandments in our judicial buildings (no religious preferences here!), and teach sectarian classes in public schools all seem like incrementalist steps towards a "Christian Nation". I understand why this would be less of a concern to you.

I would also denounce their attempts to facilitate theocratic rule by the back door (ie. forcing people to pray in schools, refusing to teach evolution or demanding that homosexuals be excluded from the military etc). I don't even particularly approve of politicians who make pro-life arguments solely from a religious perspective. In fact, if you scroll back to the beginning of this exchange, you'll see that I mocked Rick Perry for expressing such views in his 2012 presidential campaign.

But what of the Founding Fathers? Surely the 'wall of separation' between church and state is taller than that. I doubt you support as near as much separation as Jefferson or Madison did; which is much more than just state-forced prayer or bans on secular teachings.

And don't pretend that the progs. don't cry about "Christian oppression" (or prospective Christian oppression) when they spend half their lives denigrating the Bible, Christian morality and any legislation (or prospective legislation) which is inspired by Christian reasoning.

You seem to think progressives spend a lot more time thinking about Christianity than they actually do. Though, I don't know what progressives complaining about Christians has to do with my or your reasoning. Also, the Religious Right in the US are some of the biggest snowflakes in politics; some still have PTSD over barely surviving the Atheist Horde's War on Christmas .

The very fact that you've already raised the issue of gay marriage (and complained about theocracy in the abortion threads) indicates to me that you do care about politicians who predicate parts of the legislative agenda on Scripture.

I don't think I get what you mean by this. Are you calling me a theocrat?

About the fact that there are plenty of senior D's who want to eradicate "assault weapons" from civilian society

Again a super loaded (partisan) way of saying that many Dems think that civilians shouldn't have unrestricted access to ARs (the evil Dems are going to kick in your door and smash your beloved weapons in front of your eyes!). And you make such position seems extreme or niche, that civilians should not have broad access to ARs is literally the position of most democratic policy makers (and their constituents) in the world.

and that this attitude poses a threat to the 2A.

What? You think I secretly believe that any gun control legislation poses a threat to the 2A and I am just being bad faith pretending otherwise? Sorry to say, my man, but plenty of gun control legislation already exists and you seem to accept that as not being a 2A threat. So I am sorry to say that I am being genuine when I claim I don't think Dems contemplating gun control legislation (that is yet to be proposed) poses a genuine threat to the 2A. If the Dems start proposing real legislation of "mandatory buy-backs" or other legislation that broadly seizes property from citizens, you can come back and find me much more sympathetic. Such policy would be a disaster.

It means you have tried to downplay the statements/policy positions of leading libs. by claiming that their comments vis-a-vis gun control are just part of the political theatre - that they're red meat for Dem activists rather than genuine proposals.

Right, because you aren't actually an idiot who doesn't know how primary pandering and posturing works, you just play one on TV. You sure seem to understand this when the GOP candidates make insane statements/policy positions.

Denigrate them some more.

Why? Your arguments are the same type of delusional.

The jewel in your crown. Long may it glimmer in recognition of my fragile mortality!

Hey, if "Liars" are a true category of people, you have well categorized yourself, haven't you?

Except I'm not. I've never excused neocon. warmongering or attacks against civil liberties.

To be clear, you aren't fear mongering over an attack Dems have done against a civil liberty, you are raising the alarm over the perception that they want to. That's not the standard you are holding to the Republicans; their civil liberty-threatening wants seem acceptable to your position.

At the time I wrote my last message, Sanders was leading. Claiming that his stated position on firearms was out of desperation is far-fetched (especially since I bet he's always held it).

Presumably, the platform was listed on his website some time before you wrote your last message and was, you know, leading. And Sanders was certainly desperate, as most primary candidates are, to seem strong on party favorite topics (because that's who votes in primaries); again, just as the GOP does in their primaries. If you go to 38 minute marker, you can see Trump do it in real time; or did you really think he was going to "save" social security?

I'm pretty sure that Biden has every intention of trying to force a ban on AR sales through Congress if he has the numbers to do it.

I am sure you are "pretty sure" about Biden doing lots of things; that's what you do. Though, I have no idea what "force a ban through Congress if he has the numbers to do it" means; do you mean passing legislation?

This is another false binary: there is a middle ground between pursuing a policy at all costs and lying.

Sure? But you are delusional if you think American voters particularly care about unkept primary promises (as evident by support for our current politicians) and a liar if you are pretending you care about primary candidates making untenable campaign promises (as evident by the unconcern about politicians of a certain ideology who do this). You are also the one implying "pursuing at all costs", not me, by saying Dems would "eradicate" ARs through unpopular and draconian means; that's "pursuing at all costs", no?

People understand that policy positions are ambitions or things that the candidates would like to try and get done.

People could argue that, but you personally wont because then you are in a bind with Trump being the most foot-in-mouth politician who you will claim is not representing his ambitions or things he would try to get done when he makes insane policy statements. If that were the case, he would be a much more immediate threat to the Constitution in general than any Dem primary candidate is.

You're argument that Sanders, Biden etc. have no intention on even attempting to pass further firearms restrictions on ARs and are just lying for the sake of votes is inaccurate.

Wait, the Dem candidate may very well try to pass further firearm legislation if elected, of course. I never denied that. I denied that that was going to be an extreme and disastrous legislation that seizes property from law abiding citizens. If you are saying that proposing any legislation regarding gun control is too dangerous to allow, than you are truly too deep down the partisan hole and I can't help you.

I do seem to remember rather a lot of liberal squealing (perhaps even from you) about the possibility of RvW being overturned now that the cons. have a majority on the court. But I guess only the libs. are allowed to feel anxiety over their political opponents stated positions.

Oh, good, so you feel settled now that you know the 2A is safe in the hands of a Conservative SCOTUS. Thank goodness you didn't overreact!

Also, I don't believe I have made any such statements about the current SCOTUS; I think it is unlikely of them to simply overturn RvW because that is real tacky for a court to do. Interestingly enough, I hold that "eradicating" abortion is the Right wing equivalent position to the foolish notions of gun control those on the Left have. It's something they seem to care so very much about but would be a disastrous and impractical policy if they ever got their way.

O'Rourke is going to be Status Quo Joe's point man on firearm legislation if Trump is defeated. Not exactly an encouraging sign is it? Maybe I sang too soon about his demise. One should never underestimate the establishment's ability to resurrect failed candidates ( I bet Kamala Harris ends up as Biden's VP pick, just like Biden was O's pick).

This doesn't actually address what you are quoting at all.

if someone were to criticize the president for threatening the 1A for his remarks about libel laws, I wouldn't disagree with them.

Cool, so you are also saying the GOP represents a credible threat to the constitution and pushing an incrementalist agenda toward tyranny? Or do you have specific, totally non-partisan, reasons on why things the current Republican president says don't represent threats but things Democratic primary candidates do? Because if your overall stance is: "all these politicians are threats of tyranny," I would have much harder time addressing (or find interest in) your points. Maybe you really are just "hawkish about civil liberties" and forget to mention it when the Right is the threat.

You've already claimed that Sanders was lying about his proposal to regulate assault weapons in a way which "essentially makes them unlawful to own". If your only excuse for this is to claim that "everyone does it [lies]", then there's nothing more to discuss.

My "excuse" is that you obviously don't care about politicians "lying" (in this case, making infeasible campaign promises) and are trying real hard to grasp at any emotional insult you can leverage against Dems. The hand-waving is intense even by Religious Right standards: "You mean he is LyInG?!?!" Why are you pretending like you think it's notable for politicians to make untenable campaign promises?

You're the one who brought up the idea that not every weapon which requires licensing is "banned". You then defeated your own point by highlighting (as you have done here) that this was irrelevant since the discussions about the 2A relate to weapons which do not or, should not, require "government permission" to own. Even in England you can own certain firearms if you're willing to jump through endless loops.

Again, what are you talking about? I was bringing up the legal ambiguity of the term "banned" to show it doesn't represent any real policy until further defined. Whether a "ban" violates an amendment entirely depends on what the "ban" actually is in a policy sense. SCOTUS, for example, found that a ban on certain gun sales was not a violation; but their position (especially current SCOTUS) may be that a ban on ownership of already owned guns is a violation of the 2A.

Crikey, seems like he's getting the self-defense vs. criminality trade-off at long last!

Uhhh, no? I always viewed it as a judgement on how lethal of tools we want our fellow citizens to have private access to balanced with what is legally feasible policy; you can leave the self-defense/criminality trade-off out of it, guns have little to do with either (at least in today's society).

Reduction ad absurdum (again).

Never knew that the steps of a fallacy could, itself, be a fallacy. That's weird. Anyways, just because something can be a step toward an undesirable outcome, it doesn't mean there is a natural or expected progression to that outcome.

I've answered this point more times than I care to remember. The claims made by Ds justify the belief that their end goal or ambition is the eradication of "assault weapons" from civilian society

You can't actually believe that kind of reasoning: that a politician's expressed policy preferences represent their "end goal or ambition" to do something horrific. That would be far too messy for you

by extension we can expect any changes they do make to be designed with this objective in mind.

This is the fallacy bit; politicians don't try to force through every single policy preference they have while they hold the presidency, they pick and choose what they can accomplish. Imagine believing that "any changes they do make" are designed around a singular objective in mind. Hell, imagine accusing a politician of pushing an insidious agenda in every single action they take. Claim that enough and people may even meme it.

[Heathen Hammer]

Again - unless you intend to abuse power, you don't need gun control. So it is reasonable to presume that politicians that do demand gun control do intent that for abuse and nothing else.

[The spartan]

Again - unless you intend to abuse power, you don't need gun control.

Only the smallest of minorities of humons actually believe this.

[Heathen Hammer]

Appeal to alleged majority's belief is not an argument.

[The spartan]

Sorry, didn't see an argument. That gun control only ever has a purpose of abusing power seems, uh, untenable. Presumably, there are other reasons on why the state would "control" any material than "abuse power", given that a lot of things are already "controlled" by governments and always have been.

And when I say "No one believes this", I don't mean a vague majority believe it, I mean like 99% of people, including Efail here, think you can have laws involving gun control that isnt just for abusing power.

[Heathen Hammer]

Gun control contributing positively to anything other then government's ability to abuse its power over citizens seems, um, untenable. If you want to argue opposite, I'm always open to be swayed by statistics of how safe Chicago is. from gun violence.

At least in historical retrospective every horrific regime in recent history had disarmament of the population as one of the first things on its agenda. Practically speaking, if your population is armed, it is quite difficult to abuse it. On the other hand, there isn't much of anything that a tyranny can't do to people that can't shoot back.

While not every gun control supporter supports total disarmament, even the vague proposals made by the current crop of grabbers could easily be used as precedent for broader restrictions, ultimately leading to scenario where firearms can no longer be used in self-defense and you only get single-shot shotguns that you need 666 loicenses for, which government can always arbitrarily take away.

Inb4 we have to refute "muh drones" argument for 1776th time.

[The spartan]

Gun control contributing positively to anything other then government's ability to abuse its power over citizens seems, um, untenable. If you want to argue opposite, I'm always open to be swayed by statistics of how safe Chicago is. from gun violence.

Gun violence stats in Chicago are totally unrelated to whether gun control legislation could only exist to facilitate abuses of power. But to be clear here: your position on gun ownership legislation is that every single firearm (or really, weapon) should not be subject to restriction? Big guns, small guns, cannons, machine guns; all of it should be unrestricted, in your view?

[Cope]

Gun violence stats in Chicago are totally unrelated to whether gun control legislation could only exist to facilitate abuses of power. But to be clear here: your position on gun ownership legislation is that every single firearm (or really, weapon) should not be subject to restriction? Big guns, small guns, cannons, machine guns; all of it should be unrestricted, in your view?

It's the only way he could hold a consistent position!

PS: Don't worry I'll get round to responding to your essay soon enough.

[Heathen Hammer]

Gun violence stats in Chicago are totally unrelated to whether gun control legislation could only exist to facilitate abuses of power. But to be clear here: your position on gun ownership legislation is that every single firearm (or really, weapon) should not be subject to restriction? Big guns, small guns, cannons, machine guns; all of it should be unrestricted, in your view?

Chicago statistics prove that its draconian gun control is useless in maintaining public safety or preventing criminals from acquiring firearms. Why else would one want to implement gun control? My position is that state should not have agency over what objects an adult individual can own, including weapons. I strongly oppose anti-drug laws for the same reason.