TennG said:
I agree that we may be identifying the point where we diverge.
Agreement is nearly always a good thing. Hard to carry on a conversation, when we are just talking past each other.
I seems to me that you Antipas and many on this board are libertarians. I am not. That's OK, I like some of the things libertarians like and dislike others.
If you can't or won't spell my screen name correctly, how about just using my real name - It's at the bottom of every post I make - Al (or even Al Norris). Otherwise, it can appear that you are mocking the person you are writing to.
Yes, there are many libertarians on this board. However, there are also many conservatives, who call themselves republicans. There are also some few liberals who choose to call themselves democrats.
By and large, most here hold to some libertarian beliefs. Not all of them, but some beliefs. That appears to put both you and I into the same general category.
Control does limit freedom and sometimes that is good. ... However, I believe that we give up some of our rights for living in a civilized society.
On its face, I can agree with this. Where we diverge, I think, is in how much regulatory control is necessary. That's been the basis for disagreements, ever since the founding of this country.
On the one hand, are the classic liberals, the Jeffersonians. On the other hand are the Hamiltonians.
If a man wrongs me then I have a legal process that I will undertake to remedy it. You would pull out your gun and go shoot him I guess but I don't believe in that.
Here's a point wherein we diverge. You would lump me into the reactionary/radical groups, whereas, nothing I have written would give such an indication. I am often at odds with both extremes.
I believe, rather strongly, in the Rule of Law. If I believe the law is wrong, there are many avenues open to me to try and change the law. Ignoring the law, because I don't agree with it, is not an approach I take.
To that end, I, would not pull my gun over some meaningless quarrel. Attempt to harm me or mine, and the situation may escalate. Notice I said "may?" Each such situation is different and plays out differently. Guns are generally not the first tool I think of using.
You would know this, if you have read what I write. So please, don't stereotype me, without knowing who or what I stand for.
I have served in combat and seen plenty of killing...
Do you seriously think you are the only one to have served on a war-time footing? To have been in and fought in actual combat? To have lost friends (killed or wounded) to the enemy?
...but I think many of those who post here have not really seen it or they wouldn't applaud some of the stuff they do.
Perhaps. But the only thing a combat vet has over a civilian, is the fact that we know we can pull the trigger. Yet because this is a civilian setting, does not mean we have to, nor even that we want to.
I generally stay out of the T&T forum, because I can't stand some (much?) of the posturing I see. That doesn't mean I don't train or evaluate tactics.
This is just poppycock. Not allowing full access to military weapons by any and all civilians is not part of a police state.
That is merely your opinion, and not at all backed-up by history.
It is an assessment of risk that the public elected officials have made about those weapons and restricted them as a result.
That is flat out wrong. Most of the laws we are discussing, were instituted as a reaction to events that were widely publicized by the media (
sensationalized is the word that immediately comes to mind). The reality is that such incidents are extremely few and far between, and, they are driven by the very same media that cries for more legislation.
The louder the cry, the more the politicians scramble to quiet those voices - by whatever means are expedient. The end result is the passage of reactionary legislation.
The only risk assessment being done, is that of the politician being seen to do something, in order to be re-elected.
The real question you should be asking, is why, between the time of the passage of the NFA and the Hughes amendment, and the hundreds of thousands of full auto firearms in the hands of civilians, why has this risk never materialized?
Could it possibly be that there never was such a risk? Logic dictates that any such risk was imaginary from the start.