25-03-2002 05:02									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

MrFun:

quote: If we give citizens the right to own nuclear weapons, this would make citizens more capable of contributing to the nation's defense.

And you accuse me of using strawman arguments?

How would nuking portions of the US help contribute to its defense? "New York was attacked by hostile elements today, but thanks to the quick thinking of many New Yorkers, the city is now a smoking crater."

Wraith:

quote: Is there anyone in particular you're addressing this to?

I hadn't intended the question to be directed at you or Floyd et al. I think that MacTBone was the only one on this thread who said that it's silly for people to be able to own machine guns. Several more posters said this on the other thread.

quote: Why assume that's the actual intent?

This is the (expressed) intent of most posters who are in favor of gun control. I agree that it is doubtful at best that this is the (actual) intent of gun control bills (the Brady Bill being the most glaring example).

	25-03-2002 05:24									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I think it's unnecessary for people to own heavy weaponry.

Look, I just don't understand how people would want all of these things to be legal, because they're the same ones that think it is illegal to restrict access to these same weapons. Can you imagine a mentally unstable person having the power to purchase a WMD?

I'm not for banning the use of all weapons, just weapons whose only purpose is mass destruction. Machine guns cause mass destruction, combat shotguns have obviously only one use - combat.

So, again, why allow a generally unreliable public with these weapons?

	25-03-2002 05:37									#63
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

--"Despite what the Justice from South Carolina would have us believe, in fact the meaning of the Constitution is not fixed"

You, perhaps, didn't notice that it was a majority opinion on a case? This carries a lot more weight than your assertion.

--"I hadn't intended the question to be directed at you or Floyd et al."

Ah, okay.

--"So, again, why allow a generally unreliable public with these weapons?"

Because it's no worse than allowing a generally unreliable government to have them.

Again, this is just a property rights issue. The burden is on those who wish to restrict them. And, as has been stated, it's better to fight a military with military-grade weapons...

Wraith
"It's republic if you can keep it"
-- Benjamin Franklin, asked what sort of government the constitutional convention had chosen.

	25-03-2002 08:34									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Some interesting figures for you people to ponder. There are a total of 12 crimes involving guns in the first two months of 2002 in Hong Kong, a city of around 7,000,000 people. So it's about 1.7 per 1,000,000 people, and that's for two months.

To me, that's powerful indication of gun ban is working.

	25-03-2002 08:37									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Is government property the same as saying that it's private property?? If so, then nuclear weapons are private property, and that means that citizens have the right to own nuclear weapons.

David Floydd, you seem to have had a question about this statement that I made, so I reiterated for you.

What I'm saying is that if government property qualifies as private property, then based on your logic, citizens have the right to own nuclear weapons, bio-chemical weapons, tanks, military aircraft, anti-aircraft artillery, and so forth. This is all private property if government property is equivalent to the definition of private property.

And Loinburger --- ok, let's forget about nuclear weapons falling under the definition of legal firearms.

Citizens should be allowed to have the right to own tanks, military aircraft, and artillery in order to increase their capability to contribute to our nation's defense.

I'm not saying that the NRA or gun-owners advocate such an extreme, but they are ignoring this logic in their rationale for the right to own small firearms.

In today's warfare, citizens armed with pistols or rifles will not be able to defend against a foreign nation's invasion.

	25-03-2002 08:42									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by MrFun I'm not saying that the NRA or gun-owners advocate such an extreme, but they are ignoring this logic in their rationale for the right to own small firearms. In today's warfare, citizens armed with pistols or rifles will not be able to defend against a foreign nation's invasion.

It is beyond the financial means of most citizens to purchase a tank or bomber, or for that matter to purchase a machine gun. Banning small arms but legalizing military grade weapons would therefore make personal defense available only to the rich.

	25-03-2002 08:42									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

That's the oddest opinion I've ever heard.

	25-03-2002 08:48									#68
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: What I'm saying is that if government property qualifies as private property, then based on your logic, citizens have the right to own nuclear weapons, bio-chemical weapons, tanks, military aircraft, anti-aircraft artillery, and so forth. This is all private property if government property is equivalent to the definition of private property.

I'm still kinda confused as to why you would ask that - quite obviously what the federal government buys belongs to it, and what I buy belongs to me. I believe that we can both buy tanks, assuming we can both afford them.

	25-03-2002 08:51									#69
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

--"Some interesting figures for you people to ponder."

And, of course, there are just obviously no other social or cultural differences that might effect the numbers, right?

BTW, what are the total crime rates, not just those involving guns? Without that info, the most you've got is a rather tautalogical statement that higher gun availability means more guns are used in crimes. This is extremely far from even suggesting causation, must less proving it.

--"What I'm saying is that if government property qualifies as private property,"

Why would government property qualify as private property? By definition it isn't.

--"I'm not saying that the NRA or gun-owners advocate such an extreme"

I do.

--"In today's warfare, citizens armed with pistols or rifles will not be able to defend against a foreign nation's invasion."

Well, the idea behind guerilla warfare is to use the small weapons in, surprise, guerilla tactics (as in ambushes and so forth), and capture heavier enemy weapons for when you need them. There's nothing wrong with small arms in guerilla warfare.

As an example, the Jews in the Ghetto were able to hold of the Waffen SS for quite some time with nothing but pistols and captured weapons. The standoff allowed a lot more people to escape.

Wraith
"I have strong feelings about gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be controlling it."
-- Clint Eastwood

	25-03-2002 08:54									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd You are mixing up rights (right to property, for example) with entitlements (such as health care and welfare). Rights cannot be given or granted - they just ARE, and all governments can do is choose whether or not to recognize and guarantee these rights, or ignore and violate them.

You are terribly wrong. There is no such thing as so called "natural rights," for these rights we are accustomed to have do not exist in nature. As a matter of fact most of the things we have rights to do not exist in nature, they are human institutions and inventions such as private properties, so how can "natural rights" exist? They don't.

It is not like there is some kind of context-free, idealistic list of rights incribed on a stone tablet that is universally acknowldedged.

Suppose for a moment that bearing firearms is a right. This right could not have existed before the invention of firearms. Therefore, there are no "natural rights," only ones granted to individuals by a society.

	25-03-2002 08:57									#71
	Inflate your Upload Space

--"There is no such thing as so called "natural rights,""

Not again. Is there any way we can combine these two gun-rights threads?

Look, I don't care what your opinion is, US law was based on the concept of natural rights. US legal arguments cannot assume a social original, like you seem to want.

--"This right could not have existed before the invention of firearms."

UR, why are you being like this? You know this is a fallacious argument. Firearms are just another form of property, and property rights are pretty fundamental.

Wraith
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now."
-- Justice Brewer ("State of Southern Caroline vs. US" - Majority Opinion)

	25-03-2002 08:59									#72
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by loinburger It is beyond the financial means of most citizens to purchase a tank or bomber, or for that matter to purchase a machine gun. Banning small arms but legalizing military grade weapons would therefore make personal defense available only to the rich.

Nope -- you misunderstood what I meant.

Have ALL weapons available to citizens by virtue of private property. That means we should subsidize tanks, military aircraft, and maybe even nuclear weapons so that even middle class citizens can exercise their right to private property.

This INCLUDES the small firearms now fitting under legal weapons for citizens.

	25-03-2002 09:01									#73
	Got spare money?

--"That means we should subsidize"

Since when does "have available" == "subsidize"?

Just because you have a right to own something doesn't mean the government has to buy it for you.

Wraith
"Politics and crime - they're the same thing."
-- ("The Godfather")

	25-03-2002 09:04									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Wraith --"That means we should subsidize" Since when does "have available" == "subsidize"? Just because you have a right to own something doesn't mean the government has to buy it for you. Wraith "Politics and crime - they're the same thing." -- ("The Godfather")

The purpose would be so that there is less of an inequality between the upper class and middle class in exercising their right to bear arms.

There are other programs that help different classes of people to practice rights, such welfare programs and affirmative action.

Subsidizing tanks, military aircraft and artillery for middle class citizens would make sense in this context. Or not??

	25-03-2002 09:05									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Wraith And, of course, there are just obviously no other social or cultural differences that might effect the numbers, right?

What kind of social or cultural differences are relevant? That Usians are more prone to acts of violence involving guns?

quote: Originally posted by Wraith BTW, what are the total crime rates, not just those involving guns? Without that info, the most you've got is a rather tautalogical statement that higher gun availability means more guns are used in crimes. This is extremely far from even suggesting causation, must less proving it.

(Identification numbers added by me)



I have never suggested causation in the first place, that's a strawman. It seems to be, with those figures, in comparison to that of the US, a casual relation between availability of guns and the number of violent crimes (per capita). Sure, maybe there are other migitating factors, but we don't know if there are any and social factors are hard to quantity.

	25-03-2002 09:05									#76
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by MrFun That means we should subsidize tanks, military aircraft, and maybe even nuclear weapons so that even middle class citizens can exercise their right to private property.

Ah, so you mean that even middle class citizens should be allowed to enlist in the armed forces, where they will have access to government subsidized (i.e. purchased) tanks, planes, nuclear aircraft carriers, and ICBM's (depending on the abilities and predilections of the enlistee). I agree with you completely.

	25-03-2002 09:07									#77
	Full PM-box? Change here!

--"There are other programs that help different classes of people to practice rights, such welfare programs and affirmative action."

Strictly speaking, those programs are also unconstitutional. They're also fundamentally property rights violations. Any government that stuck faithfully to the concept of rights would have neither these programs nor the gun-controls we've been talking about.

Edit for crossposting:

--"I have never suggested causation in the first place, that's a strawman."

You certainly tried to imply it, however jokingly.

--"It seems to be, with those figures, in comparison to that of the US, a casual relation between availability of guns and the number of violent crimes (per capita)."

How can you possibly draw that conclusion without having the violent crimes (per capita) numbers for either location? You only provided HK numbers for some unspecified gun crimes.

Wraith
"Governments change...the lies stay the same."
-- James Bond

	25-03-2002 09:08									#78
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Ah, so you mean that even middle class citizens should be allowed to enlist in the armed forces, where they will have access to government subsidized (i.e. purchased) tanks, planes, nuclear aircraft carriers, and ICBM's (depending on the abilities and predilections of the enlistee). I agree with you completely.

Nope -- you misunderstand me again.

Citizens have the right to private property (small firearms) without ever enlisting in the military service.

So, citizens should not be required to enlist in the military service simply to pratice their right to own tanks, military aircraft, and so forth. That right is available to citizens, regardless whether they serve in the military.

	25-03-2002 09:10									#79
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Subsidizing tanks, military aircraft and artillery for middle class citizens would make sense in this context. Or not??

Since we don't have the government handing out yachts to the general populace, I don't think that the government would sudenly start handing out military grade weapons to them either.

	25-03-2002 09:10									#80
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Citizens have the right to private property (small firearms) without ever enlisting in the military service.

Absolutely. Citizens ought to be allowed to purchase whatever the hell kind of weapon they want with the money that they earn.

	25-03-2002 09:11									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Ah, so you mean that even middle class citizens should be allowed to enlist in the armed forces, where they will have access to government subsidized (i.e. purchased) tanks, planes, nuclear aircraft carriers, and ICBM's (depending on the abilities and predilections of the enlistee). I agree with you completely.

Thats right. I can hear the 2004 campaigning now. "Jobs, Healthcare, and M60 tanks for all. I wanna fight for you ; so you can fight for yourself"

Hey, I wouldnt put it past them.

	25-03-2002 09:15									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Absolutely. Citizens ought to be allowed to purchase whatever the hell kind of weapon they want with the money that they earn.

Did you miss my point again??

It does not matter whether they enlist in the military service or not with owning small firearms, so the same accesibility level should apply with military weapons and hardware within the rationale of private property rights.

And DinoDoc, yachts are private property, yet because they do not contribute to the defense of our nation within the realm of "well regulated militia", they would not be included.

They are purely recreational purpose, so no class really suffers from deprivation of yachts.

	25-03-2002 09:18									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: The purpose would be so that there is less of an inequality between the upper class and middle class in exercising their right to bear arms.

What the ****? Since when are people entitled to anything of the kind? People have the RIGHT to bear arms,but they are not necessarily ENTITLED to arms - only if they can afford them, obviously. We're running into the confusion between rights and entitlements again

quote: It does not matter whether they enlist in the military service or not with owning small firearms, so the same accesibility level should apply with military weapons and hardware within the rationale of private property rights.

So the government should subsidize Lexus's, home entertainment centers, and home security systems now??

	25-03-2002 09:20									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Wraith Look, I don't care what your opinion is, US law was based on the concept of natural rights. US legal arguments cannot assume a social original, like you seem to want.

Why are we assuming this is a legal argument, or rather, exclusively a legal argument?

quote: Originally posted by Wraith --"This right could not have existed before the invention of firearms." UR, why are you being like this? You know this is a fallacious argument. Firearms are just another form of property, and property rights are pretty fundamental.

That seems to be a sweeping generation. I posit that firearms are fundamentally different from other things you can own because they are expressedly designed to kill. There is no other purpose to firearms (a class of weapons) than to kill.

Another point is what constitutes "properties" is something that's delineated by laws. Again, there is no natural foundation of private properties we can fall back on. What that means is what can be and what cannot be property is not [1] engraved in stone [2] necessarily objective or even consistent. We need to look at each individual thing in turn. Why firearms is a form of property in the US but not cannabis? [I am not arguing that cannabis should be legalised here ] This just shows the laws are arbitrary.

	25-03-2002 09:20									#85
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: They are purely recreational purpose, so no class really suffers from deprivation of yachts.

When did I ever make a distinction between self-defense and recreation in terms of gun ownership? Guns are private property like anything else - if you can't afford one, that's just as much tough **** as it is if you can't afford a car with all the safety upgrades.

	25-03-2002 09:20									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd So the government should subsidize Lexus's, home entertainment centers, and home security systems now??

The tax money you would horde to do that would be so much that the individual couldnt afford it anyway

Oh I love Basketcase economics.

	25-03-2002 09:20									#87
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd So the government should subsidize Lexus's, home entertainment centers, and home security systems now??

Read the post that I put just before yours -- it explains why recreational items cannot be rightfully subsidized.

	25-03-2002 09:24									#88
	Support Apolyton

quote: And DinoDoc, yachts are private property, yet because they do not contribute to the defense of our nation within the realm of "well regulated militia", they would not be included.

Did you know that the primary naval vessels of Sri Lanka are yachts

In any case, this is irrelevant, because the government has no right to tax me to pay for someone else's private property.

	25-03-2002 09:25									#89
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

--"Why are we assuming this is a legal argument, or rather, exclusively a legal argument?"

This thread, unless I've got it totally confused with the other, is about how the US should get rid of guns, yes? It would require the argument to be primarily relevant to US law.

--"I posit that firearms are fundamentally different from other things you can own because they are expressedly designed to kill."

So are swords and poisons, among other things. So what?

--"Again, there is no natural foundation of private properties we can fall back on"

There is, but you don't agree with it. I really don't want to head the argument off in this direction right now.

--"This just shows the laws are arbitrary"

Yes, they are arbitrary. The ones banning cannibis are unconstitutional and should be struck from the books. It's another encroachment area.

Anyway, I need to sleep. I'll continue in the morning.

Wraith
"A good man does not obey the laws too well."
-- Henry David Thoreau

	25-03-2002 09:26									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Did you miss my point again??

I've been trying to give your posts a reasonable interpretation, but gosh darn it, you just won't let me.

quote: It does not matter whether they enlist in the military service or not with owning small firearms, so the same accesibility level should apply with military weapons and hardware within the rationale of private property rights.

Yes? Isn't this what I've been saying? The government doesn't subsidize small arms, so why should the government subsidize military grade weapons? Last I checked, people who aren't in the army have to buy their small arms with their own money.

quote: And DinoDoc, yachts are private property, yet because they do not contribute to the defense of our nation within the realm of "well regulated militia", they would not be included.

A "militia" is not subsidized by the government. That's what the "standing army" is there for. If you want to use a nuclear aircraft carrier but don't want to pay for one, then join the standing army. Otherwise, win the lottery (a few hundred times).