Pete and Henry's weapon ownership discussion
I will not answer posts from other dwellars in this thread and would prefer if you did not also. This will keep the waters from getting any muddier than necessary.
Having said that, let's see if we can define the boundaries of the discussion.
Essentially, the discussion centers around what (if any) weapons an individual citizen should be allowed to own/operate.
Agreed?
Also let's define some terms. People get all wonky about "assault weapons" because everyone defines it differently.
single-action weapon - The user must perform an action to load the next round
semi-automatic weapon - The user only needs to pull the trigger to shoot the next round
automatic weapon - The weapon will fire multiple rounds if the user holds down the trigger.
I may have the names wrong, but the categories seem right to me.
Now for some questions to find the boundaries.
An individual should be allowed to own and use a single-action weapon.
Agree? No? (Just being complete)
An individual should be allowed to own and use a semi-automatic weapon.
Agree? No?
An individual should be allowed to own and use an automatic weapon.
Agree? No?
An individual should be allowed to own and use a hand-grenade.
Agree? No?
An individual should be allowed to own and use a bazooka.
Agree? No?
An individual should be allowed to own and use a howitzer.
Agree? No?
An individual should be allowed to use armor-piercing rounds.
Agree? No?
====
If you've agreed up to here, is there any weapon you think an individual should not be allowed to own/operate?
Should every individual be allowed to own/operate the weapons above?
Yes/No
Should past felons be allowed?
Yes/No
Should people who have been declared mentally unstable be allowed to open some/all of the weapons above?
Yes/No
Should there be an age limit for owning the weapons described above?
Yes/No (If yes, what age?)
This should give us a starting point.
"I will not answer posts from other dwellars in this thread and would prefer if you did not also. This will keep the waters from getting any muddier than necessary."
Works for me (so, shut the fuck up, tw).
#
"Essentially, the discussion centers around what (if any) weapons an individual citizen should be allowed to own/operate. Agreed?"
Okay.
#
"the categories seem right to me."
As you'll see, I don't care about classifications so I'm okay with your definitions.
#
"An individual should be allowed to own and use a single-action weapon, a semi-automatic weapon, an automatic weapon, a hand-grenade, a bazooka, a howitzer, armor-piercing rounds, atomics, a doomsday device, an antimatter projector, a psychotronic death ray, etc."
Not about 'allowing'. As I say in the other thread: if I want a bazooka, can find a bazooka, can meet the price asked for, then I'm gonna have a bazooka. Whether I'm 'allowed' to or not won't figure into my reasoning except as such restrictions will shape how I go about locating and buying that bazooka.
Where the law is sensible to me, I got no problem abiding; where the the law is nonsensical, I got no problem navigating around.
Now, there are folks out there, some of my acquaintance, who probably shouldn't be allowed to own and use spoons, but -- bein' a mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself kinda guy -- I'm inclined to let them off themselves by way of their own incompetence and be ready to self-defend if they look my way too hard. I'm not inclined to hobble them.
====
"If you've agreed up to here, is there any weapon you think an individual should not be allowed to own/operate?"
I can't think of single one -- including Galactus -- that I want denied to me. Personally, I want all of 'you' to be weaponless but that's just a preference, one moderated by 'mind your business, keep your hands to yourself'.
#
"Should every individual be allowed to own/operate the weapons above?"
Again, not about 'allowing'. If Jack is crafty and wants X, then Jack is probably gonna have X, no matter what you or I or Congress have to say about it.
#
"Should past felons be allowed?"
See above.
#
"Should people who have been declared mentally unstable be allowed to open some/all of the weapons above?"
See above.
#
"Should there be an age limit for owning the weapons described above?"
Kids, be definition, lack experience which is a necessary ingredient for self-responsibility (sumthin' lackin' in many adults) so, I leave this one to parents to decide, hopin' said parents aren't nimrods.
Manual yes ,
Semi auto yes ,
Full auto , with the correct back ground checks and training yes
Grenades , no
Bazokas , no ( this is from a former marine Anti tank gunner, I was watching a fuel barge go down the river just today , thinking ya know a few decently placed RPG shots would make a mess of that thing, WAY to tempting !!!! )
howitzers and mortars , Naaa
Now for the unpopular stuff ,
I see NO reason for civis to have .50 bmg rifles .
Bump stocks and Robo triggers are stupid to .
Ar and AK Pistols are nothing but sawed off rifles ,
Mossburg Shock waves are Made sawed off shot guns , How is that leagle
All its going to take is for somebody at the ATF to come to their sences and declair them illegle and OH MY GOD THEY ARE GRABBEN OUR GUNS !!!!!
If your kid gets a hold of your weapon and shoots up a school , you should be sitting in the cell with him , Hopefully kicking his ASS every time he breaths .
These are my thoughts on things
Ok. That took an unexpected turn. We don't seem to have common ground on the value and goals of government.
Is it correct to say you are an anarchist? If not, then what rules do you think should apply to you and why do those rules differ from laws concerning individual ownership/use of weapons?
I guess I'm a minarchist, or extreme libertarian...but you can just call me Henry.
As I see it: the only real reason to have 'government' is to encourage people to mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves. Sure, gov (just hired hands, proxies) should act as final arbiter in contract dispute, and provide a certain degree of resource management, but -- mostly -- gov should leave people alone, and strongly encourage folks to leave other folks alone.
That is: gov, on all levels, should be minimal, distant, mostly silent, and narrow.
And we, the 'governed' should never let our servants, the 'governors', forget they're just employees with lent and limited power.
As for what applies to me, it's the same as applies to everyone: 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else'.
...but you can just call me Henry.
Ok.
You're a henry.
:p:
Shit, I forgot: Pete asked me to refrain from responding to other posters, in this thread, and it's too late to delete.
Sorry, Pete.
#
Turns out I could delete after all... :)
That's a crying shame since it was a brilliant reply that completely turned the tables; but, now xoB will never see it.
There be no table turners in this type thread. :headshake
Only clarifications of position and sometimes reasons.
You wouldn't be able to say that if you had read it. :yesnod:
I guess I'm a minarchist, or extreme libertarian...but you can just call me Henry.
As I see it: the only real reason to have 'government' is to encourage people to mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves. Sure, gov (just hired hands, proxies) should act as final arbiter in contract dispute, and provide a certain degree of resource management, but -- mostly -- gov should leave people alone, and strongly encourage folks to leave other folks alone.
That is: gov, on all levels, should be minimal, distant, mostly silent, and narrow.
And we, the 'governed' should never let our servants, the 'governors', forget they're just employees with lent and limited power.
As for what applies to me, it's the same as applies to everyone: 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else'.
No time to leave a reasoned response just now. But it should be an interesting discussion.
Point of parliamentary order: how do you define armor-piercing? Any ordinary .30 caliber hunting rifle will blow right through a Class III vest and out the back. Or are you referring to the steel-cored variety?
I guess I'm a minarchist, or extreme libertarian...but you can just call me Henry.
As I see it: the only real reason to have 'government' is to encourage people to mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves. Sure, gov (just hired hands, proxies) should act as final arbiter in contract dispute, and provide a certain degree of resource management, but -- mostly -- gov should leave people alone, and strongly encourage folks to leave other folks alone.
That is: gov, on all levels, should be minimal, distant, mostly silent, and narrow.
I don't think that's enough. Most people, left to their own devices will do whatever they think they can get away with. Cynical, I know. And I never thought I'd end up this way, but there you are.
I think there's a lot of things that should not be 'left alone'. I don't think laissez faire works. I think the EPA is sorely needed so that we don't wind up with an uninhabitable world. I think that rules are needed or we'll have chaos.
If I have some time, I'll make up a complete list of what I think government should and shouldn't be responsible for.
And we, the 'governed' should never let our servants, the 'governors', forget they're just employees with lent and limited power.
That, we agree on.
"Most people, left to their own devices will do whatever they think they can get away with."
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind" -Frederic Bastiat
#
"I don't think laissez faire works."
Absolutely it works...if you *beware.
*as in 'buyer (and seller) beware'
"I'll make up a complete list of what I think government should and shouldn't be responsible for."
Here's mine (if it wasn't obvious from what I've posted up-thread):
Minimal Courts (of last resort).
Minimal police (to protect and serve, not control).
Minimal military (primarly to safeguard the border).
Minimal resource management (cuz sumbody gotta change out the toilet paper rolls).
Beyond that, gov oughta do nada (and shouldn't even be spoken of, thought of, as 'government', but instead as 'proxies' 'employees', 'public servants').
I must've missed something. I don't see no pictures.[emoji25]
Nope, you didn't miss anything, no pictures.
snip--
I think there's a lot of things that should not be 'left alone'. I don't think laissez faire works. I think the EPA is sorely needed so that we don't wind up with an uninhabitable world. I think that rules are needed or we'll have chaos.
If I have some time, I'll make up a complete list of what I think government should and shouldn't be responsible for.
--snip
Go crazy.Hey, Pete, you comin' back?
...is gone.
I'll say one thing for Pete: he actually made an effort.
Most of 'you': pffftt!