Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

How Many Guns Do You Need?

Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 1:54:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America makes clear citizens have to right to arms. The courts for over 200 years have reiterated it means what it says (why do we even need to go through that exercise?).

In light of the established fact this is a right, does the argument, "How many guns do you need? How many rounds does it need to hold?" carry any weight? I believe that argument is a not well veiled attempt to reconstruct a right into a privilege.

How many do I need? Enough to sate my desire to possess them, within my means.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 2:51:07 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 1:54:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America makes clear citizens have to right to arms. The courts for over 200 years have reiterated it means what it says (why do we even need to go through that exercise?).

In light of the established fact this is a right, does the argument, "How many guns do you need? How many rounds does it need to hold?" carry any weight? I believe that argument is a not well veiled attempt to reconstruct a right into a privilege.

How many do I need? Enough to sate my desire to possess them, within my means.

Hmm.................................10.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 3:03:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 1:54:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America makes clear citizens have to right to arms. The courts for over 200 years have reiterated it means what it says (why do we even need to go through that exercise?).

In light of the established fact this is a right, does the argument, "How many guns do you need? How many rounds does it need to hold?" carry any weight? I believe that argument is a not well veiled attempt to reconstruct a right into a privilege.

How many do I need? Enough to sate my desire to possess them, within my means.

Were I to deconstruct preparedness...

2 side arms/Pistols, preferably one easily concealed, and one with stopping power
1 shotgun for home defense
1 carbine/battle rifle
1 designated marksman's rifle
1 automatic rifle or box fed 'machine gun' for suppression purposes
1 precision/scoped rifle
1 machine pistol

I think that pretty much sums up my 'needs'.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 3:05:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 3:03:18 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/25/2016 1:54:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America makes clear citizens have to right to arms. The courts for over 200 years have reiterated it means what it says (why do we even need to go through that exercise?).

In light of the established fact this is a right, does the argument, "How many guns do you need? How many rounds does it need to hold?" carry any weight? I believe that argument is a not well veiled attempt to reconstruct a right into a privilege.

How many do I need? Enough to sate my desire to possess them, within my means.

Were I to deconstruct preparedness...

2 side arms/Pistols, preferably one easily concealed, and one with stopping power
1 shotgun for home defense
1 carbine/battle rifle
1 designated marksman's rifle
1 automatic rifle or box fed 'machine gun' for suppression purposes
1 precision/scoped rifle
1 machine pistol


I think that pretty much sums up my 'needs'.

That sounds well and good. What if you wanted more, but didn't need more. Does that argument matter to you? To me it does not. My rightful answer to how many I need is, none of the government's f-ing business.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 3:07:48 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 3:05:02 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:03:18 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/25/2016 1:54:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America makes clear citizens have to right to arms. The courts for over 200 years have reiterated it means what it says (why do we even need to go through that exercise?).

In light of the established fact this is a right, does the argument, "How many guns do you need? How many rounds does it need to hold?" carry any weight? I believe that argument is a not well veiled attempt to reconstruct a right into a privilege.

How many do I need? Enough to sate my desire to possess them, within my means.

Were I to deconstruct preparedness...

2 side arms/Pistols, preferably one easily concealed, and one with stopping power
1 shotgun for home defense
1 carbine/battle rifle
1 designated marksman's rifle
1 automatic rifle or box fed 'machine gun' for suppression purposes
1 precision/scoped rifle
1 machine pistol


I think that pretty much sums up my 'needs'.

That sounds well and good. What if you wanted more, but didn't need more. Does that argument matter to you? To me it does not. My rightful answer to how many I need is, none of the government's f-ing business.

These people would look at your list, and look at me, then tell you that 2 pistols are not needed, therefore not within your rights. I carry by choice a concealed full size 1911, .45acp, and 2 spare magazines. They would tell you to choose one and be grateful you are allowed that one.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 3:12:15 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 3:05:02 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:03:18 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/25/2016 1:54:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America makes clear citizens have to right to arms. The courts for over 200 years have reiterated it means what it says (why do we even need to go through that exercise?).

In light of the established fact this is a right, does the argument, "How many guns do you need? How many rounds does it need to hold?" carry any weight? I believe that argument is a not well veiled attempt to reconstruct a right into a privilege.

How many do I need? Enough to sate my desire to possess them, within my means.

Were I to deconstruct preparedness...

2 side arms/Pistols, preferably one easily concealed, and one with stopping power
1 shotgun for home defense
1 carbine/battle rifle
1 designated marksman's rifle
1 automatic rifle or box fed 'machine gun' for suppression purposes
1 precision/scoped rifle
1 machine pistol


I think that pretty much sums up my 'needs'.

That sounds well and good. What if you wanted more, but didn't need more. Does that argument matter to you? To me it does not. My rightful answer to how many I need is, none of the government's f-ing business.

Of course it matters, but "needs based rights" run into what are reasonable prospects. People find the idea of a citizen needing an Uzi 9mm to be absurd... in the US. For everyone that thinks the US is not at risk of invasion, there are various other countries in the world that currently or have had their citizens in harms way from an invading army.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 3:15:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 3:07:48 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:05:02 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:03:18 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/25/2016 1:54:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America makes clear citizens have to right to arms. The courts for over 200 years have reiterated it means what it says (why do we even need to go through that exercise?).

In light of the established fact this is a right, does the argument, "How many guns do you need? How many rounds does it need to hold?" carry any weight? I believe that argument is a not well veiled attempt to reconstruct a right into a privilege.

How many do I need? Enough to sate my desire to possess them, within my means.

Were I to deconstruct preparedness...

2 side arms/Pistols, preferably one easily concealed, and one with stopping power
1 shotgun for home defense
1 carbine/battle rifle
1 designated marksman's rifle
1 automatic rifle or box fed 'machine gun' for suppression purposes
1 precision/scoped rifle
1 machine pistol


I think that pretty much sums up my 'needs'.

That sounds well and good. What if you wanted more, but didn't need more. Does that argument matter to you? To me it does not. My rightful answer to how many I need is, none of the government's f-ing business.

These people would look at your list, and look at me, then tell you that 2 pistols are not needed, therefore not within your rights. I carry by choice a concealed full size 1911, .45acp, and 2 spare magazines. They would tell you to choose one and be grateful you are allowed that one.

To which I would ask what their standard of "need" is. Given current cases involving concealed carry, and the subsequent carrier being shot due to panic, I would prefer to minimize that risk by utilizing smaller framed firearms.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 3:16:51 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 3:12:15 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:05:02 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:03:18 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/25/2016 1:54:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America makes clear citizens have to right to arms. The courts for over 200 years have reiterated it means what it says (why do we even need to go through that exercise?).

In light of the established fact this is a right, does the argument, "How many guns do you need? How many rounds does it need to hold?" carry any weight? I believe that argument is a not well veiled attempt to reconstruct a right into a privilege.

How many do I need? Enough to sate my desire to possess them, within my means.

Were I to deconstruct preparedness...

2 side arms/Pistols, preferably one easily concealed, and one with stopping power
1 shotgun for home defense
1 carbine/battle rifle
1 designated marksman's rifle
1 automatic rifle or box fed 'machine gun' for suppression purposes
1 precision/scoped rifle
1 machine pistol


I think that pretty much sums up my 'needs'.

That sounds well and good. What if you wanted more, but didn't need more. Does that argument matter to you? To me it does not. My rightful answer to how many I need is, none of the government's f-ing business.

Of course it matters, but "needs based rights" run into what are reasonable prospects. People find the idea of a citizen needing an Uzi 9mm to be absurd... in the US. For everyone that thinks the US is not at risk of invasion, there are various other countries in the world that currently or have had their citizens in harms way from an invading army.

The intent of an armed populace was not to defend against invasion. It was to arm the citizen against a domestic tyranny, to give the tyrants pause, making them reflect if they would have massive bloodshed to achieve their goals. An unarmed populace does not provide that reason for thinking ahead. That is the true reason the framers of America documented, and no one wants to talk about any longer.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 3:19:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 3:15:09 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:07:48 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:05:02 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:03:18 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/25/2016 1:54:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America makes clear citizens have to right to arms. The courts for over 200 years have reiterated it means what it says (why do we even need to go through that exercise?).

In light of the established fact this is a right, does the argument, "How many guns do you need? How many rounds does it need to hold?" carry any weight? I believe that argument is a not well veiled attempt to reconstruct a right into a privilege.

How many do I need? Enough to sate my desire to possess them, within my means.

Were I to deconstruct preparedness...

2 side arms/Pistols, preferably one easily concealed, and one with stopping power
1 shotgun for home defense
1 carbine/battle rifle
1 designated marksman's rifle
1 automatic rifle or box fed 'machine gun' for suppression purposes
1 precision/scoped rifle
1 machine pistol


I think that pretty much sums up my 'needs'.

That sounds well and good. What if you wanted more, but didn't need more. Does that argument matter to you? To me it does not. My rightful answer to how many I need is, none of the government's f-ing business.

These people would look at your list, and look at me, then tell you that 2 pistols are not needed, therefore not within your rights. I carry by choice a concealed full size 1911, .45acp, and 2 spare magazines. They would tell you to choose one and be grateful you are allowed that one.


To which I would ask what their standard of "need" is. Given current cases involving concealed carry, and the subsequent carrier being shot due to panic, I would prefer to minimize that risk by utilizing smaller framed firearms.

I've openly carried a full size firearm for 30 years, even in high stress, high risk situations. The only benefit to a smaller frame is easier concealment if you can't figure out how to conceal the larger one. But no one needing a small frame firearm doesn't take away the right to own one, either ;)
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 10:36:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 1:54:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America makes clear citizens have to right to arms. The courts for over 200 years have reiterated it means what it says (why do we even need to go through that exercise?).

In light of the established fact this is a right, does the argument, "How many guns do you need? How many rounds does it need to hold?" carry any weight? I believe that argument is a not well veiled attempt to reconstruct a right into a privilege.

How many do I need? Enough to sate my desire to possess them, within my means.

Obviously, any law that tells you which arms you may or may not posses, any law requiring a license or permit (some sort of application) to carry, or any law that places restrictions on where you may legally carry are infringements of the 2nd amendment and oppressive to a person's natural rights.
Otto_Hasenkamp
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 11:00:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 1:54:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America makes clear citizens have to right to arms. The courts for over 200 years have reiterated it means what it says (why do we even need to go through that exercise?).

In light of the established fact this is a right, does the argument, "How many guns do you need? How many rounds does it need to hold?" carry any weight? I believe that argument is a not well veiled attempt to reconstruct a right into a privilege.

How many do I need? Enough to sate my desire to possess them, within my means.
On terms of interest and sport, a machine gun, a shotgun, a revolver and a handgun would be great. I love to see how guns function.
On terms of home security, I doubt you need anything more than a small handgun. My dad used to own a ruger standart and it worked just fine.
It's true that you need protection from home invasions and such, but I don't think any long rifles are necessary. They're robbers, not a SWAT team.
Besides, it makes the authorities nervous.
"Vor uns liegt Deutschland, in uns marschiert Deutschland, und hinter uns, kommt Deutschland!"
YYW
Posts: 36,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 11:01:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 1:54:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America makes clear citizens have to right to arms. The courts for over 200 years have reiterated it means what it says (why do we even need to go through that exercise?).

In light of the established fact this is a right, does the argument, "How many guns do you need? How many rounds does it need to hold?" carry any weight? I believe that argument is a not well veiled attempt to reconstruct a right into a privilege.

How many do I need? Enough to sate my desire to possess them, within my means.

How many guns does a person need? Enough to compensate for their penis size, obviously.
Tsar of DDO
keithprosser
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2016 7:00:23 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Most people manage quite well with zero guns. Is think the question being answered is 'How many guns do you want?'
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2016 6:33:12 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 1:54:34 PM, Throwback wrote:
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America makes clear citizens have to right to arms. The courts for over 200 years have reiterated it means what it says (why do we even need to go through that exercise?).

In light of the established fact this is a right, does the argument, "How many guns do you need? How many rounds does it need to hold?" carry any weight? I believe that argument is a not well veiled attempt to reconstruct a right into a privilege.

How many do I need? Enough to sate my desire to possess them, within my means.

Depends upon what you are going for. If defense from a tyrannical gov is in question then items which are considered "small arms and light weapons" would be in order. As many as you could get, however, most are outlawed and apparently not considered as a right to bear: hand grenade, RPG, mortors under 100 mm, heavy machine guns, portable anti air craft.

I guess "arms" are regulated. Hummmm
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2016 7:01:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/28/2016 6:37:40 PM, desmac wrote:
Should the 2nd Amendment include personal nuclear weapons and delivery systems?

OK
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2016 2:12:40 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/28/2016 6:37:40 PM, desmac wrote:
Should the 2nd Amendment include personal nuclear weapons and delivery systems?

You sort of already can, depending upon how transparent you want to be about it. Its possible to order fissile material for research purposes, and construction of a dirty bomb from that wouldn't be terribly difficult. Small scale reactors are not outside the ability of vested and dedicated individuals.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...