4 ms·

When I was in Fallujah we let each household keep one AK (which was almost always full-auto). Why did we do this? Because it is immoral to strip an individual

by woodman 10y ago

When I was in Fallujah we let each household keep one AK (which was almost always full-auto). Why did we do this? Because it is immoral to strip an individual of all means for self defense, especially when we knew that we couldn't protect everybody. So while the US is not a war zone, when does such a moral principle kick in? I don't trust everybody with a rifle, hell - I especially don't trust you given your expressed view, but I accept the fact that the police can't protect everybody - and it is immoral to insist that they depend on protection that isn't there.

ryanmarsh 10y ago
Brother you know why they were allowed an AK. I did the same cordon and searches too. They faced a different threat model.
- woodman 10y ago
  Again: "So while the US is not a war zone, when does such a moral principle kick in?" Concerns over moral principles might be totally irrelevant to you though, if you are a utilitarian/end-justifies-the-means sort of guy.
  - ryanmarsh 10y ago
    Self defense doesn't require a 30 round mag.
    - arca_vorago 10y ago
      Bullshit it doesn't. Ever get in a firefight with a bolt-action and win? Didn't fucking think so. Fuck, a 15 minute firefight could have me expend 240+ rounds easy! (especially if our 249's were down or for suppressive reasons, but still)
      - ryanmarsh 10y ago
        Do you still suffer from PTSD or something? We're back home. You aren't going to find yourself in an L shaped ambush in the shopping mall.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - woodman 10y ago
      So utilitarian... you know that "self defense" covers scenarios that involve more than one aggressor right? Are you proposing a more democratic form of self defense, where the mob is effectively always right? That is ignoring the moral dimension of the problem; from a purely practical perspective you can be outvoted in your self defense.
      - ryanmarsh 10y ago
        See that's what you guys (assault weapon supporters) are really all about. Some kind of military style combat engagement where you'll have to defend your family from a full breakdown of society or the zombie apocalypse or something. That's not a likely enough occurence to justify my neighbors arsenal of mass casualty producing weapons. An even bigger fantasy: some of you guys dream of standing up to the US gov't. IIRC that rarely works out well. Sorry but in the US you're already at a disadvantage because you're digitally tracked here. Over there they don't have to use digital devices to conduct daily life. You already live in a police state.
        woodman 10y ago
        > That's not a likely enough occurence to justify... Neither is the "mass shooting" likely enough to occur to justify a major curtailment of the second amendment. You are more likely to drown in a paint bucket. You aren't thinking, you've fallen under the spell of bloody shirt waving - which is fine if it ended there, but you want to impose your hysteria on others.
        tracker1 10y ago
        First, I'm not a firearm owner, but a libertarian, in favor of less government and more personal liberty all around type... As to the police state, that's the point... there's no partial ban that shouldn't apply to the police as the police have no reason to use a firearm that shouldn't apply to someone in their own home.
        gonvaled 10y ago
        It gets even more interesting: these people support that individuals should be able to defend themselves against a zombie apocalypse with the argument (I assume) that "even though that is a very unlikely event, the consequences would be catastrophic, so we should be ready for that". Basically: probability * consequences > pain-threshold The same people are viscerally opposed to the fight against global warming, because it is an "unlikely event", even though the consequences would be vastly more catastrophic for humankind, if it turns out to be true. I don't understand their logic.
- arca_vorago 10y ago
  I wish my fellow warriors would learn to remember their oath to the constitution (and therefore the second amendment) in discussions like this. The fact that you don't seem to is sad but indicative of the general disregard for the importance of oaths these days.
  - ryanmarsh 10y ago
    That's a pretty serious accusation there buddy. How specifically am I disregarding my oath?
    - arca_vorago 10y ago
      Your casual and flippant disregard for the need to arms oneself with more than a single shot pea shooter is in direct contradiction with the second amendment. Do you disagree? (and keep it on point) Also, my verbiage left room for you to correct, eg. " don't seem to", so it's not an accusation... yet. Also, the real discussion is in my other comment in this suspiciously flagged thread.
      - dang 10y ago
        Your comments in this thread crossed repeatedly into being uncivil. That breaks the HN guidelines. Please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all, from now on.
        arca_vorago 10y ago
        Really? I am assuming you are speaking about "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. " First of all. I think that was a bad rule to be introduced in the first place. I don't think there was proper user input on that change, and the backlash was mostly ignored. That being said though... While I can understand my comments were not put in the nicest of terms and verbiage, I in no way became uncivil. Please indicate precisely to me where I became "uncivil", and please make clear your definition of "uncivil". Sure, I cussed a couple of times, but last I checked HN wasn't against cussing. As a matter of fact, reviewing my comments in this thread, I see nothing you could take as violating the negativity rule at all, unless you are applying an excessively broad scope to the rule that would set a precedent that would harm HN as a whole. I do think perhaps this part might be in violation: "Also, the real discussion is in my other comment in this suspiciously flagged thread." That though, is not being uncivil, and would be a violation of another issue, and I shouldn't have said that. It's too late to edit now though. In short, dang, you don't seem to have provided very clear reasoning for your comment, so I would like you to please clarify. I admit in retrospect this is probably why the article got flagged, perhaps rightly so, because it is a contentious subject that was/is bound to create charged debate. My comments were heated but not uncivil, and your insinuation that they were is concerning to me, especially when the other commenter at one point was making attacks on me based on my PTSD. If anything I would expect you to be saying this to him for that comment. Dan, I eagerly await your reply, as I have always tried to be a good commenter on HN, and I am open to correction if my errors are pointed out properly.

by woodman 10y ago

ryanmarsh 10y ago

Brother you know why they were allowed an AK. I did the same cordon and searches too. They faced a different threat model.

woodman 10y ago
Again: "So while the US is not a war zone, when does such a moral principle kick in?" Concerns over moral principles might be totally irrelevant to you though, if you are a utilitarian/end-justifies-the-means sort of guy.
- ryanmarsh 10y ago
  Self defense doesn't require a 30 round mag.
  - arca_vorago 10y ago
    Bullshit it doesn't. Ever get in a firefight with a bolt-action and win? Didn't fucking think so. Fuck, a 15 minute firefight could have me expend 240+ rounds easy! (especially if our 249's were down or for suppressive reasons, but still)
    - ryanmarsh 10y ago
      Do you still suffer from PTSD or something? We're back home. You aren't going to find yourself in an L shaped ambush in the shopping mall.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - woodman 10y ago
    So utilitarian... you know that "self defense" covers scenarios that involve more than one aggressor right? Are you proposing a more democratic form of self defense, where the mob is effectively always right? That is ignoring the moral dimension of the problem; from a purely practical perspective you can be outvoted in your self defense.
    - ryanmarsh 10y ago
      See that's what you guys (assault weapon supporters) are really all about. Some kind of military style combat engagement where you'll have to defend your family from a full breakdown of society or the zombie apocalypse or something. That's not a likely enough occurence to justify my neighbors arsenal of mass casualty producing weapons. An even bigger fantasy: some of you guys dream of standing up to the US gov't. IIRC that rarely works out well. Sorry but in the US you're already at a disadvantage because you're digitally tracked here. Over there they don't have to use digital devices to conduct daily life. You already live in a police state.
      - woodman 10y ago
        > That's not a likely enough occurence to justify... Neither is the "mass shooting" likely enough to occur to justify a major curtailment of the second amendment. You are more likely to drown in a paint bucket. You aren't thinking, you've fallen under the spell of bloody shirt waving - which is fine if it ended there, but you want to impose your hysteria on others.
      - tracker1 10y ago
        First, I'm not a firearm owner, but a libertarian, in favor of less government and more personal liberty all around type... As to the police state, that's the point... there's no partial ban that shouldn't apply to the police as the police have no reason to use a firearm that shouldn't apply to someone in their own home.
      - gonvaled 10y ago
        It gets even more interesting: these people support that individuals should be able to defend themselves against a zombie apocalypse with the argument (I assume) that "even though that is a very unlikely event, the consequences would be catastrophic, so we should be ready for that". Basically: probability * consequences > pain-threshold The same people are viscerally opposed to the fight against global warming, because it is an "unlikely event", even though the consequences would be vastly more catastrophic for humankind, if it turns out to be true. I don't understand their logic.
arca_vorago 10y ago
I wish my fellow warriors would learn to remember their oath to the constitution (and therefore the second amendment) in discussions like this. The fact that you don't seem to is sad but indicative of the general disregard for the importance of oaths these days.
- ryanmarsh 10y ago
  That's a pretty serious accusation there buddy. How specifically am I disregarding my oath?
  - arca_vorago 10y ago
    Your casual and flippant disregard for the need to arms oneself with more than a single shot pea shooter is in direct contradiction with the second amendment. Do you disagree? (and keep it on point) Also, my verbiage left room for you to correct, eg. " don't seem to", so it's not an accusation... yet. Also, the real discussion is in my other comment in this suspiciously flagged thread.
    - dang 10y ago
      Your comments in this thread crossed repeatedly into being uncivil. That breaks the HN guidelines. Please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all, from now on.
      - arca_vorago 10y ago
        Really? I am assuming you are speaking about "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. " First of all. I think that was a bad rule to be introduced in the first place. I don't think there was proper user input on that change, and the backlash was mostly ignored. That being said though... While I can understand my comments were not put in the nicest of terms and verbiage, I in no way became uncivil. Please indicate precisely to me where I became "uncivil", and please make clear your definition of "uncivil". Sure, I cussed a couple of times, but last I checked HN wasn't against cussing. As a matter of fact, reviewing my comments in this thread, I see nothing you could take as violating the negativity rule at all, unless you are applying an excessively broad scope to the rule that would set a precedent that would harm HN as a whole. I do think perhaps this part might be in violation: "Also, the real discussion is in my other comment in this suspiciously flagged thread." That though, is not being uncivil, and would be a violation of another issue, and I shouldn't have said that. It's too late to edit now though. In short, dang, you don't seem to have provided very clear reasoning for your comment, so I would like you to please clarify. I admit in retrospect this is probably why the article got flagged, perhaps rightly so, because it is a contentious subject that was/is bound to create charged debate. My comments were heated but not uncivil, and your insinuation that they were is concerning to me, especially when the other commenter at one point was making attacks on me based on my PTSD. If anything I would expect you to be saying this to him for that comment. Dan, I eagerly await your reply, as I have always tried to be a good commenter on HN, and I am open to correction if my errors are pointed out properly.