4 ms·

As I said, it was a supposition ;) I can understand having a license to own a gun (My dad owns a hunting rifle, and a handgun that was an inheritance from my g

by BSousa 14y ago

As I said, it was a supposition ;) I can understand having a license to own a gun (My dad owns a hunting rifle, and a handgun that was an inheritance from my grandpa which will possible pass down to me) but I was watching some news a couple weeks ago where they were showing a hearing on the senate (I think) and the people that went to talk there were defending that changing the laws to allow some guns but not others (automatic rifles I think) was wrong. In exactly what case does a civilian need an automatic rifle? I sorta understand the afraid of the government thing, but let's be honest, if the government wants to be even more/fully totalitarian, an untrained militia carrying rifles won't stop them.

rooshdi 14y ago
I'm American and the truth is we don't need automatic rifles, but there is a very strong history of firearms in this country and thus a very strong supportive lobbying group behind it fighting to strike down anything which has potential to weaken it financially. The protecting ourselves from 'the government' argument is pure nonsensical bullshit, as 'the government' already has more nefarious means of controlling the masses. Simply put, there are a lot of ignorant people in America supporting ignorant lobbying groups who care more about their money than morality.
mseebach 14y ago
> In exactly what case does a civilian need an automatic rifle? Generally, suppression of negative freedoms are argued in terms of "what is the need of the collective to forcibly deny this freedom to citizens" rather than what need the citizen has to use the freedom. What is your exact need for freedom of the press extended to even obscene material? What is your exact need to be allowed to worship even satan? And my favourite: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. > but let's be honest, if the government wants to be even more/fully totalitarian, an untrained militia carrying rifles won't stop them. It's probably not going to help much against a slow slide, but it will make revolutions look a lot different.
sigzero 14y ago
The government really has no jurisdiction to determine how I exercise my RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I don't need to explain to you or anyone else for that matter why I want or think I need an AR-15.
- khuey 14y ago
  Would you apply that same logic to a strategic nuclear weapon? If not, where is the dividing line between a nuke and an AR-15, and who and what determines it?
  - damoncali 14y ago
    At a minimum, you want to have available weapons which provide a significant deterrent to government abuse of power. You want such abuses to be at the risk of a protracted deadly fight that threatens the stability of the power of the abusive government. Anything beyond that is unnecessary, and too much beyond that threatens the security of the people as a whole. Practically speaking, I would allow everything up to .50 caliber machine guns with minimal regulation.
nitrogen 14y ago
Automatic rifles have been illegal for a long time. It might have been "assault" rifles, which are semi-automatic, that were the subject of debate. To answer your question, the everyday life justification for firearm ownership is recreational use on a shooting range or in unpopulated wilderness where it is permitted. They are also useful in exceptional circumstances (like a fire extinguisher is useful despite having a fire department), and some people just collect them as a hobby, like any other collection (like this dentist I knew once whose collection was kept in a code-locked room in his house). I think a more interesting question is why there is so much focus on attacking rifles, when the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns.

by BSousa 14y ago

rooshdi 14y ago

I'm American and the truth is we don't need automatic rifles, but there is a very strong history of firearms in this country and thus a very strong supportive lobbying group behind it fighting to strike down anything which has potential to weaken it financially. The protecting ourselves from 'the government' argument is pure nonsensical bullshit, as 'the government' already has more nefarious means of controlling the masses. Simply put, there are a lot of ignorant people in America supporting ignorant lobbying groups who care more about their money than morality.

mseebach 14y ago

> In exactly what case does a civilian need an automatic rifle? Generally, suppression of negative freedoms are argued in terms of "what is the need of the collective to forcibly deny this freedom to citizens" rather than what need the citizen has to use the freedom. What is your exact need for freedom of the press extended to even obscene material? What is your exact need to be allowed to worship even satan? And my favourite: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. > but let's be honest, if the government wants to be even more/fully totalitarian, an untrained militia carrying rifles won't stop them. It's probably not going to help much against a slow slide, but it will make revolutions look a lot different.

sigzero 14y ago

The government really has no jurisdiction to determine how I exercise my RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I don't need to explain to you or anyone else for that matter why I want or think I need an AR-15.

khuey 14y ago
Would you apply that same logic to a strategic nuclear weapon? If not, where is the dividing line between a nuke and an AR-15, and who and what determines it?
- damoncali 14y ago
  At a minimum, you want to have available weapons which provide a significant deterrent to government abuse of power. You want such abuses to be at the risk of a protracted deadly fight that threatens the stability of the power of the abusive government. Anything beyond that is unnecessary, and too much beyond that threatens the security of the people as a whole. Practically speaking, I would allow everything up to .50 caliber machine guns with minimal regulation.

nitrogen 14y ago

Automatic rifles have been illegal for a long time. It might have been "assault" rifles, which are semi-automatic, that were the subject of debate. To answer your question, the everyday life justification for firearm ownership is recreational use on a shooting range or in unpopulated wilderness where it is permitted. They are also useful in exceptional circumstances (like a fire extinguisher is useful despite having a fire department), and some people just collect them as a hobby, like any other collection (like this dentist I knew once whose collection was kept in a code-locked room in his house). I think a more interesting question is why there is so much focus on attacking rifles, when the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns.