Oh jeez, stop referring to the AR-15 as varmint caliber. It's ridiculous. .223 isn't ideal for hunting game but it'll put a hole straight through your head and/or chest quite easily.
But it's still a low power round, as compared to a 30-06 or a number of pistol rounds such as the 357 that will put not only a hole into your chest but holes through 4 people standing in the crowd behind you as you all push to get out of the movie theater. The point was that the AR-15 was arbitrarily banned because it
looked scary to clueless senators, not because it was more dangerous than a hunting rifle.
1. A regular citizen with an M16 is not armed as well as a soldier with an M16. You know this as well as I do. Would you allow mandatory regular training programs to stay up-to-date about the proper use adn care of your weapon, at the same level as hose the soldier receives?
Mister there's a whole lot of stuff I'd do if I had my druthers but it's beside the point. Of course he's not as good as a soldier, but a civilian with an AR-15 or a Kalashnikov is still better equipped than a civilian only armed with a bowie knife and an uncompromising desire for liberty. You seem to be of the opinion that purity of spirit and willful purpose will see a revolution through and that guns will only sully and ruin it. I can't believe I'm even bothering to respond further, regardless how much I like to argue.
2. I'd say the point of the FF was to arm the general populace in such a way that they could effectively defend themselves
from said professional army. I hope you can agree that just giving everyone a gun isn't going to accomplish that. Actually, probably your best bet would be a general draft (which, oddly, I
am in favour of
).
Funnily enough, the original version of the 2nd amendment included a clause prohibiting conscription, but it didn't make the final cut. But I am not saying that armaments in and of themselves stave off tyranny, I'm saying they're prerequisite.
Again, I'm not against guns per se. I'm against guns that won't help in any case, have no daily application, and can cause unheard of grief and suffering when in the wrong hands.
Different weapons for different situations. Yes, the airstrikes do lots of damage, but infantry can avoid airstrikes and frankly when you're trying to oppress your own populace you generally avoid scorched earth tactics because if you win a Pyrrhic victory you've really lost anyway because there will be nobody left to rebuild your empire when you're done. Plus, as I've illustrated in previous posts in this thread, the attempted prohibition of these weapons does nothing to decrease violent crime (and in some cases violent crime even increases). Even our own recent 10 year experiment with banning big scary "assault" weapons had no statistical effect, which is why the ban was dropped.
As someone who has to help rehabilitate people from things like gunshot injuries, I'll tell you that I'd rather see people not shot than worry about government control conspiracies. It's funny how people are armed to the teeth in places like Syria, Ethiopia, and Burma and yet coups and oppression still happen overnight. I mean really, these places are a Libertarian's dreamland right? Why aren't they all flocking there?
No, banning guns won't stop every single mass attack like in Colorado, but it'll sure help. No one needs an assault rifle, and trust me, if the US fell into a tyrant's hands you'd have plenty of access to them regardless of how legal they are pre-occupation.
Ah, my good old friends, ad hominem and appeal to emotion. Like two comrades coming in to chat by the fire. Frankly, you've got your figures wrong - Syrians are armed to the teeth NOW that there's a civil war on, but before that, as I posted earlier, their guns per 100 was less than 5. And think about that figure. Guns per 100 in the US is 88.8, but that doesn't mean 88% of americans own guns - it means that there are 88 guns for every 100 americans. Gun owners tend to own multiple guns, and tend to be vastly outnumbered by abstainers. So in syria, that's even less people who owned guns. And no, they are not Libertarian's dreamlands, that's another fallacious statement. Libertarians are not anarchists. Look, I know you're the new guy, but you're making some very rookie argument mistakes. It's to be expected, I suppose, on so emotional a topic especially one that apparently hits close to home.
Banning guns won't stop any of this. Criminals will still have guns. There will still be violence, it's in human nature. And even if they don't use guns, this joker-wannabe had complex homemade explosives in his apartment as well, set up as booby traps for the cops. What if instead of guns he brought a backpack full of homemade plastique to the theater, armed the timer and left just as the opening credits rolled? What if he filled a supersoaker with a gasoline-styrofoam slurry and strapped a road flare to the end?
I know everybody wants there to be a reason, some rationale they can understand if only to hate and oppose for this tragedy. You wanna blame this on guns, or on "gun culture," or on bullying or the tea party or a bad breakup or scholastic failure... some reason that makes it understandable if still unpalatable. But there probably isn't one. Evil exists in the world, believe me, I know, and sometimes it doesn't need a reason. Maybe he wanted to see his name in lights, maybe he just wanted to hear the symphony of dying screams. He's deranged, there is no rational reason, and that has to be understood. You cannot understand a mind that has ceased to be human.
Huh. I guess maybe Alfred was right - some men do just want to watch the world burn.
Also, I could probably do more damage with your first example than all the ones you think are for non-hunting.
An argument I've been making all along but he doesn't want to hear it. Look at that post... no better than Diane Feinstein with the "ooh look scary scary assault weapons! BAN!"
