stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Hitchens]

@Daldoma,

I would not advocate for a blanket gun ban. I just don't think certain guns should be in the hands of civilians merely for the sake of protection against a tyrannical government when the guns in the hands of civilians wouldn't really stop a tyrannical government.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

@Daldoma,

I would not advocate for a blanket gun ban. I just don't think certain guns should be in the hands of civilians merely for the sake of protection against a tyrannical government when the guns in the hands of civilians wouldn't really stop a tyrannical government.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Well that's very different, and doesn't put you at odds with the Founding Fathers. They supported the right to bear arms -- not the right to own an arsenal of AK-47s.

I believe a person has a fundamental right to self defense. Sufficient weaponry to protect oneself is a necessary extension of such a right.

But where the bounds of 'sufficient weaponry' end is a matter of legitimate debate. Obviously, things like grenades and mines do not qualify. Neither should automatic weaponry. I think extended magazines should absolutely be on the table for a possible ban. You have a right to defend yourself, not a right to be Rambo.

[Hitchens]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well that's very different, and doesn't put you at odds with the Founding Fathers. They supported the right to bear arms -- not the right to own an arsenal of AK-47s.

I believe a person has a fundamental right to self defense. Sufficient weaponry to protect oneself is a necessary extension of such a right.

But where the bounds of 'sufficient weaponry' end is a matter of legitimate debate. Obviously, things like grenades and mines do not qualify. Neither should automatic weaponry. I think extended magazines should absolutely be on the table for a possible ban. You have a right to defend yourself, not a right to be Rambo.

So I don't have to move to Australia after all?

Sweet!

[Rikimeru]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well that's very different, and doesn't put you at odds with the Founding Fathers. They supported the right to bear arms -- not the right to own an arsenal of AK-47s.

I believe a person has a fundamental right to self defense. Sufficient weaponry to protect oneself is a necessary extension of such a right.

But where the bounds of 'sufficient weaponry' end is a matter of legitimate debate. Obviously, things like grenades and mines do not qualify. Neither should automatic weaponry. I think extended magazines should absolutely be on the table for a possible ban. You have a right to defend yourself, not a right to be Rambo.

you are aware that you cant just go out and buy an automatic weapon right?

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Rikimeru [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you are aware that you cant just go out and buy an automatic weapon right?

You've never been to a city, have you Country Mouse?

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Rikimeru [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you are aware that you cant just go out and buy an automatic weapon right?

Yes. You also can't just go out and buy landmines. I was demonstrating what is and isn't an example of sufficient weaponry to defend oneself.