[quote author=FJAG]
Allowing governments to arbitrarily access private messages truly is an invasion of privacy that effects all of us. Who then decides what constitutes "hate" speech? Is it CNN's reporting of the stuff Trump says? That's truly a slippery slope.[/quote]
Why is your privacy more important than the lives of children? Think of the children
I totally agree but the "think of the children"/"if it saves just one life" premise has long been a mantra by gun control advocates.
Being honest you don't really care either way really about firearms, that's cool. I wouldn't expect you to get too emotional over those old guns you mentioned that you haven't shot in 50 years (aside from an heirloom sort of thing).
Perhaps if you're an imbiber of alcohol you would be more bothered by the "saves just one life" mantra if the government was looking at severely restricting alcohol ownership/possession or out right banning it.
That's why I bring up computers and privacy. Maybe it's apples and oranges but the privacy thing I mentioned (along with no alcohol, no smoking) would surely save some lives and that's enough for some people to support it.
Maybe in a couple years the government going through our PMs and Email "to save lives" will be the next fight.
[quote author=FJAG]Let me give you just a brief viewpoint on why bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and thirty round magazines are being used as guidepoints. It's primarily because such things are frequently the functions attached to military high powered rifles whose primary use is the killing of people.[/quote]
Okay, what constitutes high powered? Is it the size and power of the bullet? If so the 5.56mm bullet that the AR15 isn't very powerful compared to common hunting calibers like .308s, 30-06 and such. There's often arguments that the AR15s 5.56 caliber is under powered.
[quote author=FJAG]You do not need any of those things for legitimate hunting or even home defence. Many people are of the view that people who need/want to own modern military firearms are displaying worrisome personality disorders and that it an unreasonable step in society to make such highly destructive weapons readily available.[/quote]
I'm not a hunter but I think trying to decide whats needed and whats not for hunting seems very subjective. I've heard that line a lot, you don't need such and such a gun for hunting, often from non-hunters. I think that may be like me with my legal background of 1x PLQ PO check saying you don't need a lawyer if you're not guilty. Right?
A Remington 700 bolt action rifle and Remington 870 pump-action shotgun are probably the most widely known,owned and used "hunting" guns. At least in North America but all over the world too I suspect. Would you care to take a guess at how many people have been killed with those guns by the police and military? 700 makes a hell of a sniper rifle. Police have been using the 870 forever.
One could say hunters don't need the same guns snipers use to kill people and police use to shoot criminals.
As for home defense, are you suggesting that the AR15 rifle isn't good for defending your house? We use them for self-defense in the military and to protect our country. I can't really think of many better guns for home defense than an AR15.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/opinion-no-one-needs-an-ar15
Doesn’t it seem clear that anyone who feels the need for an AR-15 is already displaying abundant evidence of disordered thinking? If you are paranoid enough to think you need so much firepower for home protection, that’s more paranoia than sanity can contain.
Some might argue believing in an invisible being in the sky is evidence of disordered thinking. Begging an invisible person for help if someone is attacking you? Might work. I'd stick with an AR myself ;D
[quote author=FJAG]I know that I'm venturing into risky ground because many people on this forum are strong advocates of owning military firearms.[/quote]
I'll say! Your posts are always awesome though, I thoroughly enjoy them. Even if you think I have some kind of disorder :Tin-Foil-Hat:
[quote author=FJAG]
Let's face facts. The vast majority of society--even in the US--is of the view that there needs to be much stricter gun control and that military firearms, and pseudo-military firearms, are unnecessary and undesirable in a free and democratic society and further that people who defend and encourage their continued proliferation have something wrong with them. Try to remember that the Heller decision in the USSC in 2008 that interpreted the 2nd amendment broadly on the grounds of self defence was only a five to four ruling and that it did indicate that limitations were acceptable on a case by case basis.
This issue is just another one of those that highlights the strata that our society is divided into. Neither side will ever admit that their views may be unreasonable or that there is any valid justification for their opponents views. Personally, I think that semi-automatic is semi-automatic regardless of whether it's wrapped up in an AR-15 style body or a Ruger Mini-14. I also believe that 5 round magazines and strict background check and registration requirements are reasonable limits to their ownership. The former, alas, all to easy to get around. The aim of the game is to make the majority of society feel safe and comfortable in their lives. What works here might not work in South Africa or Afghanistan. Conditions differ. NZ has been gobsmacked and what is being done there now is to make the people feel good that the government is taking action on their collective behalf. That matters and is, IMHO, worth so much more than the usual bullsh*t "thoughts and prayers" for the victims of gun violence that the US political leadership takes after these events.
:2c:
[/quote]
Good points for sure. Going after guns is easy and low hanging fruit. It's a bandaid solution that will make people in the moment feel better and safer- catnip for politicians.
I have 100% confidence that anyone here with our Mariomike mentored research skills could make some wicked IEDs, pipebombs and chemical weapons in our houses. Anyone with access to the net can download the know how (Maybe a great example of stricter police powers and anti-privacy laws eh?)
Say we get rid of privately owned firearms, maybe we'll see a drop in crime and someone might have to work harder to kill a bunch of people. Who do we blame when guns are gone and someone does a chemical attack (Japan) or daisy chains a bunch of pipe bombs to children? Do we look at banning more stuff or do we take a look at whats radicalizing people, the process and ways to bring people back. Ways for people to be constructive rather than destructive.
Pretty sure firearm owners realize our days are numbered. lt is what it is but I don't think it will solve any problems. If anything it will probably succeed in accomplishing exactly what the NZ shooter wanted. I think we should look for better solutions than going for a kill count of 7 instead of 17.