Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 191

Thread: Pro AR-15 arguments

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bavaria, Germany
    In my opinion this discussion goes the wrong way.
    The question should never be, why you need something. It should be, why something has to be banned. And if there are not damned good reasons to ban something, it must not be banned.

    If you jump on the "I need this for X"-train, you'll end up, as we did in Germany. Every time I want to but a gun, I have to proof, that I need it (for example fot target shooting). That's a pretty simple way, to limit the number and type of guns. Especially if you only accept a limited number of things people need a gun for (for example self defense is usually not accepted over here).

    Gun laws are like traffic laws. It makes perfect sense, to ban people from drunken driving and require them to stop at a red traffic light. But it does nothing good to require people to explain the need for every vehicle they own.
    Last edited by Luger; 02-26-2018 at 03:15 AM.
    If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

  2. #22
    Member JHC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Georgia
    I will share a piece from NRO by Jay Cost that IMO does a very nice job putting the 2A into perspective; and a perspective that is just a few degrees off what we most commonly hear or argue.

    As valid as the bulward against tyranny argument is, I've never found it helpful in convincing skeptics. They look at our massive public security infrastructure and say "Yeah right, that would work. Walter Mitty is more like it."

    When I saw Jay Cost's historical breakdown in this piece I used it in discussion with a liberal friend who back around the Heller decision, has argued that the 2A was a collective right of states. I don't know how much her view has been evolving as it soaks in and becomes national consensus that the 2A is an individual right, but she responded very favorably to how Jay Cost put it out there.

    The "common defense" is not strictly for fighting a federal government gone rogue. The common defense he articulates may seem much more real to people who have not thought hard about it before. It's much easier to think of real world examples. And from there, why would the most common, most efficient rifle for defense be excluded?

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...t-means-today/
    Last edited by JHC; 02-26-2018 at 06:47 AM.
    “Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais

  3. #23
    Hokey / Ancient JAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kansas City
    Luger has it exactly. If you offer justification you belie the real reason we can possess guns in America — because the Constitution recognizes it as a God given right. As soon as you start offering reasons why you need it you self rebut the irrefutable nature of that right.

    No matter what you offer in the vein of this thread, it will never have the emotional impact or, frankly, the real moral value of a dead child.
    Ignore Alien Orders

  4. #24
    Site Supporter LOKNLOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Quote Originally Posted by JAD View Post
    Luger has it exactly. If you offer justification you belie the real reason we can possess guns in America — because the Constitution recognizes it as a God given right. As soon as you start offering reasons why you need it you self rebut the irrefutable nature of that right.

    No matter what you offer in the vein of this thread, it will never have the emotional impact or, frankly, the real moral value of a dead child.
    You’re both right, we always say it’s not about the guns, but the people... and then start justifying the guns.

    This is a philosophical issue at its core and people who haven’t been taught (or come to it on their own) to value individual liberty even at the expense of risk.

    “Freedom isn’t free” isn’t just a platitude off appreciation of the military. It doesn’t just mean we get to send someone else to fight for it. It means we all pay for it every day with a great deal of responsibility and risk.

    We’ve lost a lot of that understanding. New “Freedom” is leisure, lack of responsibility, and having “stuff”. Brave New World stuff here. We’ve got a big chunk of youth chanting, what amounts to, “take my rights they’re too hard” about guns, free speech, economics, everything.
    --Josh
    “Formerly we suffered from crimes; now we suffer from laws.” - Tacitus.

  5. #25
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Quote Originally Posted by LOKNLOD View Post
    “Freedom isn’t free” isn’t just a platitude off appreciation of the military. It doesn’t just mean we get to send someone else to fight for it. It means we all pay for it every day with a great deal of responsibility and risk.

    We’ve lost a lot of that understanding. New “Freedom” is leisure, lack of responsibility, and having “stuff”. Brave New World stuff here. We’ve got a big chunk of youth chanting, what amounts to, “take my rights they’re too hard” about guns, free speech, economics, everything.
    Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

  6. #26
    Hokey / Ancient JAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Kansas City
    Quote Originally Posted by LOKNLOD View Post
    We’ve lost a lot of that understanding. New “Freedom” is leisure, lack of responsibility, and having “stuff”. Brave New World stuff here. We’ve got a big chunk of youth chanting, what amounts to, “take my rights they’re too hard” about guns, free speech, economics, everything.
    I strongly recommend Servais Pinckaers' work describing the difference between "freedom for excellence" versus "freedom of indifference." It's a development of Aquinas' work on the topic but it's a little more accessible. https://www.scribd.com/document/4450...-Excellence-op. I also recommend Weigel's refutation of Isaiah Berlin's writing on positive versus negative liberty (https://www.firstthings.com/article/...ept-of-freedom).

  7. #27
    Site Supporter Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    Quote Originally Posted by LOKNLOD View Post
    We’ve got a big chunk of youth chanting, what amounts to, “take my rights they’re too hard” about guns, free speech, economics, everything.
    Man. Great BLUF, right there.^^^


    As to the moral and emotional value of a dead child, I am constanly (daily) reminded that my friends who CCW and want the ability to carry expanded have a lot in common with my friends who want to ban all da gunz: they all want less death to the innocent. It gets boiled back down to providing facts and raising the general education level on the subject.

  8. #28
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Quote Originally Posted by Sidheshooter View Post
    It gets boiled back down to providing facts and raising the general education level on the subject.
    If one could only count on the fact of facts being a factor. (So to speak.)

    Just seems that they continue to fall on deaf ears. And just as bad, the intentional misrepresentation by the media. This morning I heard that genius Chris Cuomo talking about the ban of all semi-automatic rifles.

    You can't make folks listen if they refuse to hear...and you just can't fix stupid...nor "oops!", intentional misrepresentation. (Lest we forget: "Hands up! Don't Shoot!")
    Last edited by blues; 02-26-2018 at 12:20 PM.
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

  9. #29
    Site Supporter Totem Polar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    PacNW
    ^^^point taken.

  10. #30
    We have gotten off the pro AR OP, to a why should the second ammendment not be infringed arguments. I prefer to argue against gun control from a pro America stand point, vs. self defense or hunting. I'd say, we are the greatest country in the history of the world because of the Bill of Rights and the Consitution.

    Simply put...

    Our founding fathers felt tyranny, a totalitarian regime, was the greatest injustice a civilian population could endure. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness implies self preservation is an inherent right. But self protection/preservation is not rhe strongest argument. Tyranny is, a mention of Stalin's Russia, Polpot's Cambodia, Communist China today. Seems like history gives us plenty of examples of why a disarmed public can go badly. Tyranny can impeded LL&PoH.

    An attempt at Constitutional law...

    The right to bear arms is the 2nd ammendmemt for a reason, not 5th or 8th. After freedom expression, the second is in place because citizens need the ability to protect the right given in the first, free expression, specific to tyranny, the right to voice, assemble and criticize the goverment.

    Amendments 3 through 9 all specifically address tyranny as well. in it's many forms. I would also bring up the 9th ammendment and how it re-enforces natural, inherent rights, specific to the 1875 case, US vs. Cruikshank in which the court indicated that the right to bear arms is not beholden to the Bill of Rights or the constitution, but a right enshrined previously in English law and other documents. Not case law, but precedence, right?

    The Bill of Rights was a negotiated addition to the Consitution pressed by the Anti-Federalists fears of a tyrannical Federal goverment.

    The irony of how the Bill of Rights has been used by the Federal government since the 19th century is just another example of how well our goverment was designed. A good indication that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not documents to be reinturputed based on the feelings of the day.

    Just few disjointed ideas... Cheers!

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •