a well regulated militia

[LordSludge]

Originally posted by MaggieL

And the "reason" you're looking for is: It's my right to keep and bear arms. It's not your right to decide what arms I should be allowed to have.

Getting into the business of "prove to me you should be allowed to own this particular gun" is one hell of a slippery slope. Our state constitution says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned. It doesn't say "execpt for really nasty things that Spin doesn't like". <snip>

You're stopping short, hence not recognizing the dilemma. The 2nd Amendment not only gives us "the right to keep and bear" nasty guns, but "arms". It doesn't say "muskets" or "personal protection"; it says honest to goodness ARMS. I believe (as many do) that the intent of this amendment was to allow the public to credibly defend itself against an oppressive government.

Now c'mon -- anybody who honestly believes a few assault rifles would stand any chance of deterring a bona fide govt assault by anything more vicious than a battalion of rabid postal carriers is just stupid. We need machine guns, shoulder-fired rockets, tanks, missiles, and tactical nukes! But you gotta ask yourself, how safe would you feel knowing your neighbor and half the guys in the county had tactical nukes at their personal disposal? (Road rage = KABOOM!!! ) I believe, however, the 2nd Amendment gave that right, but it is obsolete, irrelevant, and frankly (don't shoot me -- ) should be repealed.

Don't get me wrong; the 2nd Amendment made good sense when muskets were among the pinnacle of weaponry, and it was reasonable to expect some sort of military balance between the power of the government and the power of the people. However, it is now centuries obsolete -- made so by the power of modern weaponry vs. the irresponsibility of Joe American.

The classic NRA "protection vs. govt" line is Grade A bullshit, and I wish people would stop invoking it. Please understand and recognize this: The real reason for packing heat is for power vs. fellow man, whether that's a potential criminal, a bully in a bar, or an unwelcome visitor caught boinking your spouse. Now whether that's a valid reason to permit personal weapons (even assault rifles) is debatable, but not, I believe, constitutionally protected.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by LordSludge

The classic NRA "protection vs. govt" line is Grade A bullshit, and I wish people would stop invoking it. Please understand and recognize this: The real reason for packing heat is for power vs. fellow man, whether that's a potential criminal, a bully in a bar, or an unwelcome visitor caught boinking your spouse.

The Pennsylvania constitution is very clear on this point: " The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense <b><i>of themselves</i></b> and the State shall not be questioned." [emphasis added] So this includes the 9mm autoloading pistol I carry, as well as the Springfield M1-A/M-14 "assult-style rifle" I''d like to own, but can't afford at the moment.

(As an aside, capping an unwelcome boinker will get your guns conficated and you thrown in the slammer...unless the boinker was unwelcome by the <i>spouse</i>, too, in which case it's justified use of deadly force in this state...rapist season is always open.)

The intent of Amendment 2 was manifold--danger can come from many directions, not just an out-of-control government--but clearly the founders thought a disarmned populace was a bad idea, and I agree. And and out-of-control government is nothing more than a biggish gang of hoodlums...your "fellow man" writ large.

The idea that an armed citizenry is pointless simply because the government owns bigger guns is silly. Don't underestimate the power of small arms widely held by a large population. Nice thing about it is that it's inherently democratic. The republic was born in guerilla warfare, and it could, if need be, happen again.

Unless people who think our rights are "obsolete" surrender them for us.

[LordSludge]

Originally posted by MaggieL
The Pennsylvania constitution is very clear on this point: " The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense <b><i>of themselves</i></b> and the State shall not be questioned." [emphasis added] So this includes the 9mm autoloading pistol I carry, as well as the Springfield M1-A/M-14 "assult-style rifle" I''d like to own, but can't afford at the moment.

Interesting tidbit on the PA constitution! Of course it's irrelevant to the national constitution and, by extension, national arms rights. But my implicit question remains unanswered: What defines "arms"? How do you arrive at the conclusion that pistols and assault rifles are okay? Just your arbitrary personal opinion? Why not shoulder-fired rockets? Sure would be easier to defend my home with a 50 cal machine gun mounted on the porch and an M1 Abrams tank in the garage. Who are you to tell me I can't have them?? I have a constitutional RIGHT!!!

(As an aside, capping an unwelcome boinker will get your guns conficated and you thrown in the slammer...unless the boinker was unwelcome by the <i>spouse</i>, too, in which case it's justified use of deadly force in this state...rapist season is always open.)

No argument here, although a simple gunshot is probably too kind...

The intent of Amendment 2 was manifold--danger can come from many directions, not just an out-of-control government...

Maybe, maybe not, but it's kinda hard to support that position in light of the more specific language present in, say, the PA constitution -- language which is conspicuously absent in the national constitution.

--but clearly the founders thought a disarmned populace was a bad idea, and I agree.

This is probably the heart of the issue, and the key point that we disagree on. I really do think the constitution right to arms argument is bunk, but the question remains: Are we safer with armed citizens or with disarmed citizens? It probably boils down to different viewpoints on human nature. I tend to think that even basically kind, decent, "good" people can lose it from time to time. A gun greatly facilitates death in such a situation.

[anecdote edited to protect the guilty; sorry -- I just reconsidered that a public forum prolly isn't the best place for this story]

Guess that's where I'm coming from... I think that gun-advocates tend to see in more black and white, but you tell me?

And and out-of-control government is nothing more than a biggish gang of hoodlums...your "fellow man" writ large.

Maybe true, but the power of their weaponry makes pistols and assault rifles utterly irrelevant. (see below)

The idea that an armed citizenry is pointless simply because the government owns bigger guns is silly. Don't underestimate the power of small arms widely held by a large population. Nice thing about it is that it's inherently democratic. The republic was born in guerilla warfare, and it could, if need be, happen again.

You've got to be kidding. I gotta assume you're just saying this for argument's sake. Please tell me you don't really believe your subdivision, armed with M-14s, could hold off a full assault of marines, complete with automatic weapons, mortars, artillery, heli gunships, etc.

That was then -- we fought muskets with muskets. This is now -- there's just no contest. I guess, you might argue that North Vietnam fought off the U.S. through guerilla warfare, but they had much more than mere pistols and semi-auto assault rifles with which to fight, not to mention that was 30 years ago. U.S. military tech hasn't exactly stood still.

I can't believe I even have to argue this point. You might as well be insisting the sky is green...

Unless people who think our rights are "obsolete" surrender them for us.

MODERN WEAPONRY has made any constitutional right to arms that may or may not exist obsolete. It just doesn't matter -- "armed" civies vs. "ARMED" govt don't have a prayer, NONE, even w/ guerilla tactics, *unless* the civies have access to real weaponry, e.g. fully automatic rifles, grenades, rockets, etc. at a MINIMUM. They'd need tanks, heli gunships, etc. to even approach a fair fight.

I'll ask again: Would you feel safe if Joe American had access to bona fide modern weaponry? After all, ICBMs don't kill people; PEOPLE kill people.

[jaguar]

I'm with you sludge, the whole idea of overthrowing the govt is farcical nowadays.

True story: My best friend freaked out one night at a party, probably as side-effect of an anti-OCD drug plus too much alcohol, and tried to strangle his wife (also a good friend of mine). She fought him off, got away, and they're now split up for good. If he'd had immediate access to a gun, he would have killed her. Then, he would have killed himself over the guilt. He told me this in so many words. Now he's not a bad guy; he's my best friend -- no police record, etc. But sometimes basically good people do bad things. Add guns to the mix, and bad things become Bad Things with a simple pull of the trigger.

This is the "what if" game that no one can win. Yes, if he had a gun, he might have killed her. And if she had a gun, she might have held him off. Would he try to attack his wife if he knew she was armed and knew how to use it? What if? Blah blah blah. Seriously. You can't win here, so let's just drop it. I like you, but this is an awful example.

Guns definitely do facilitate death. That's what they were made to do - kill people. Unfortunately, this can't be undone. Guns are here to stay.

Now, what to do about it?

Well, one option that you <i>seem</i> to support is the idea of gun control laws - making it illegal to possess handguns and assault rifles (which were your examples). Okay. So those laws get passed and you're real happy. What have they accomplished? <b>They remove the guns from the hands of law abiding citizens</b>. That is the very simple and obvious outcome, and you cannot argue it. Read it over again and again until it totally makes sense. Only those that obey the laws are going to follow it. Criminals don't care about the laws, so it's not bothering them.

As a matter of fact, they're loving this gun control stuff. Why? Well, for one, it creates an illegal market for guns. Those that are able to traffic in them will become obscenely rich. Secondly, it means that Joe Q. Citizen does <b>not</b> have a gun, so Leroy G. Thug can pick on him at will. Leroy might not have a gun, but he <b>knows</b> that John doesn't, and that gives him an advantage. Partially because John can't know whether or not Leroy does, and partially because Leroy now isn't in as great a physical danger as he is when he attacks someone who is carrying a firearm.

So the situation that has been created is this: law abiding citizens do not have firearms (pistols and assault rifles), and criminals may or may not.

Explain to me how this is a good idea?

"Well, the potential for accidental firearm deaths will decrease."

Okay. Well, last time I checked, more people died in car accidents than did in shooting incidents. Let's make cars illegal too? Hmmm?

I'll give gun control advocates the benefit of the doubt and assume that their intentions are noble - to make the country a safer place. But... how is it possibly a <b>good idea</b> to make any sorts of firearms illegal? How does that help you accomplish your goal?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by LordSludge
Interesting tidbit on the PA constitution! Of course it's irrelevant to the national constitution and, by extension, national arms rights

Not at all. There are no "national arms rights". They're not "national rights", they're the people's rights...the Federal Constitution's Second Amendment simply prohibits the Federal Government from infringing them. In the Commonwealth, our constitution reiterates that that right is not to be questioned.

By the way, they're not called "tid-bits". They're called "articles". If we called them "tid-bits", some dweeb might think they were trivial, optional, and amendable by whim.

What defines "arms"? How do you arrive at the conclusion that pistols and assault rifles are okay?

Arms Arms, n. pl. OE. armes, F. arme, pl. armes, fr. L. arma,
pl., arms, orig. fittings, akin to armus shoulder, and E.
arm. See Arm, n.
1. Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.

Seems pretty clear that handguns and long guns fall under that rubric.

Why not shoulder-fired rockets? Sure would be easier to defend my home with a 50 cal machine gun mounted on the porch and an M1 Abrams tank in the garage. Who are you to tell me I can't have them?? I have a constitutional RIGHT!!!

Indeed you do. And *I* certainly won't tell you you can't have them. I might offer some commentary on how effective they might be...but that's just opinion. Make sure you pay the Class 1 tax on the .50 cal, it's annoying, but legally required. You *are* allowed to have one, legally, today...assuming you can get your local cop shop to sign off that you're OK.

The Abrhams might be a bigger problem....catepillar treads tend to tear up municipal paving. :-)

I'm not going to play "slippery slope" with you about drawing a line somewhere between a slingshot and a Minuteman warhead, because we'll end up playing the old Salami Game. That's where somebody steals your salami one slice at a time, and nothing happens, because one slice of salami isn't worth fighting over. Pretty soon, there's nothing left but the string, and that's not worth fighting over either.

a simple gunshot is probably too kind...

Probably too kind (assuming you don't go in for kneecaping), but inarguably effective. Of course, there's that other constitutional "tid-bit" about "cruel and unusual punishment"...but if we're editing the constitution to suit your personal prejudices, why stop with just the Second Amendment?

I tend to think that even basically kind, decent, "good" people can lose it from time to time. A gun greatly facilitates death in such a situation.

So, you just don't trust good people with guns. You'd rather only the criminals and the cops had them (neither of whom have a particularly good record, BTW).

I don't share your view, and I don't believe the facts support it either. I can point you to piles of research and studies that show individually and in bulk that the cases where a legally armed citizen does *good* by being armed vastly outnumber the cases where they go berzerk and do evil. In fact the real-world cases where armed citizens prevent a crime vastly outnumber the cases where cops prevent a crime. They just don't usually generate press reports and anecdotes.

language which is conspicuously absent in the national constitution.

It wasn't conspicuous until I pointed it out to you, of course.

They're obviously not worded in *exactly* the same way. The Federal Constitution had more cooks messing with the broth, and it shows..even in the punctuation, much less the diction. Nontheless, they both still say what they say, and mean what they say. So while you're marvelling at points that you can't belive you need to defend, marvel at that.

If he'd had immediate access to a gun, he would have killed her....sometimes basically good people do bad things...bad things become Bad Things with a simple pull of the trigger...Guess that's where I'm coming from.

Unless *she'd* had immediate access to a gun, of course. Then we wouldn't have had to wait for his remorse to take over.

I'm sorry that you project your distrust of yourself and your friends onto the rest of us, but happily so far your opinion doesn't rule. The biggest danger you face involving firearms *isn't* that some legally armed citizen is going to go berzerk and plug you. Even if your taste in friends runs to those with personality disorders who mix drugs and alcohol. (I'd recommend the lady involved obtain a protection from abuse order, BTW. Then you won't have to worry about your drunken friend with OCD getting guns legally.)

I can't believe I even have to argue this point.

You can stick in all the eye-roll smilies you like, but I think your view of the balance of power between the government and the people is hideously oversimplified.

Your proposed scenario of a Marine assult on a subdivision sounds like something an elementary school kid would draw in crayon, but do you really think there's a battallion available for every town in the country? Do you really think they'd have much unit cohesion once they started to get orders to assault their own people? And how long do you think their weapons would remain completely in government hands? (The Vietcong at one point were issued handmade single-shot weapons--little more than zip guns--the purpose of which was to take out *one* enemy soldier by sniping, thereby arming the shooter.)

I *do* believe I have to argue the points about gun prohibitionism, because your lines of argument are very common among gun prohibitionists, and we've heard *all* of them on The Cellar at one time or another.

The slippery slope ("You don't want a nuke...do you?") the paranoid accusation ("Why can't you feel safe without a gun?"), the "obsolete constitution" argument ("Oh, it doesn't really mean what it says, and weapons are completely different today, so let's just ignore it") and the *other* paranoid accusation ("I wouldn't trust me with a gun, or any of my friends, I'm afraid they might flip out, so you shouldn't have one either.")

MODERN WEAPONRY has made any constitutional right to arms that may or may not exist obsolete

Well, it *does* exist, and I don't think it's obsolete. Just because *you* don't personally like this particular part of the Constitution doesn't invalidate it, thank goodness.

[jaguar]

Unless *she'd* had immediate access to a gun, of course. Then we wouldn't have had to wait for his remorse to take over.

Thank you for illustrating an argument for gun control. Instead of a situation which ended peacefully it would have ended with a death if *either* of them had had a gun and possibly 2 deaths. People always have a capability to kill, the better the available weaponry the more likely deaths will occur.

Seems pretty clear that handguns and long guns fall under that rubric.

yup, and tanks, nukes, chemical weapons, grenades, rocket launchers.......

I'm not going to play "slippery slope" with you about drawing a line somewhere between a slingshot and a Minuteman warhead, because we'll end up playing the old Salami Game. That's where somebody steals your salami one slice at a time, and nothing happens, because one slice of salami isn't worth fighting over. Pretty soon, there's nothing left but the string, and that's not worth fighting over either.

Summerised to: I can't acutally deny this one.

Out of question, why do you want an assult rifle, personal protection? Killing wildlife?

Your proposed scenario of a Marine assult on a subdivision sounds like something an elementary school kid would draw in crayon, but do you really think there's a battallion available for every town in the country? Do you really think they'd have much unit cohesion once they started to get orders to assault their own people? And how long do you think their weapons would remain completely in government hands? (The Vietcong at one point were issued handmade single-shot weapons--little more than zip guns--the purpose of which was to take out *one* enemy soldier by sniping, thereby arming the shooter.)

Congratulations for defeating your own point. Firstly i'd point out that over 3 million Vietnamese died to 50,000 US soldiers. If the govt dissolved to the point where the vast majority of the population was in open insurrection many other things would happen before it dissolved into armed conflict anyway, its silly to even argue it. It is also point out that militas which were very popular in the 90s were carefuly scrutinised by the govt, i'm sure if any had started posing a serious threat they would have started dissipearing too.

Well, it *does* exist, and I don't think it's obsolete. Just because *you* don't personally like this particular part of the Constitution doesn't invalidate it, thank goodness.

Visa Versa.

[headsplice]

Specifically Jag and Sludge, because they're the ones arguing most vehenmently.

Why can I not have a gun? I was speaking in the hypothetical before, but, I'll be more specific now. Why not? I've never been arrested; I haven't even been in a fistfight since I was in junior high school. I don't drive drunk. I don't really even speed that much.
Therefore, I put the challenge to you:

Tell me why I cannot have a weapon at my disposal.

The burden of proof is not on me. I have done nothing wrong. You want to punish me for the actions of another. That, I do not accept.

[Nic Name]

Orignially posted by MaggieL

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If he'd had immediate access to a gun, he would have killed her....sometimes basically good people do bad things...bad things become Bad Things with a simple pull of the trigger...Guess that's where I'm coming from.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Unless *she'd* had immediate access to a gun, of course. Then we wouldn't have had to wait for his remorse to take over.

Army officer's wife charged in shooting death

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Thank you for illustrating an argument for gun control.

Nonsense.

The woman was assulted by a man who was drunk, and on psychiatric drugs. I personally think she should have had the opportunity to defend herself.

Instead *you'd* let her face a lunatic perhaps twice her size barehanded so you can have a feel-good about gun prohibition. Nice guy.

Summerised to: I can't acutally deny this one.

No, summarized to: I won't sacrifice the principle to extreme hypotheticals. Very few people waste money on overkill weapons like that. Some admittedly do, legal or not. If someone wants to keep a tank in his backyard, it's OK with me. (in fact some people here do). Toxic chemicals of any kind, including fissionable materials, fall more under public health issues in my view; but I don't think they should be regulated <i>because they might be used as weapons</i>.

C'mon, you know enough about argumentation to know what a "slippery slope" is.

Out of question, why do you want an assult rifle, personal protection? Killing wildlife?

Oh, please. Why do you buy meat? "Eating wildlife"? It's called "hunting", you're really stretching to try to make it sound evil.

I might want one for self-defense, or for hunting, or for both, or for neither. I might be a collector. I might be a sport shooter. The fact is, my personal reasons for owning any particular weapon (or anything else, for that matter) aren't subject to your personal review.

Do you own a car? Why? Why not? What are you going to do with it.? Can you justify it against the environmental impact? Why don't you sell it and feed the starving children? Why don't you buy one and support the auto industry? Can you prove you'll never have an accident with it?

How about that computer of yours? Why do you need that? It's perfectly capable of comitting intellectual property theft. I demand you surrender it to the government, and replace it with equipment that's been neutered to make sure it can only be used for nice, safe, legal purposes.

You see jag, I don't *have* to justify to you my desire to own any particular weapon, computer, data, software, tool or anything else. It's my business, not yours. Any of them *could* be used to comitt a crime, or make war...or not. That doesn't justify your desire to confiscate them, or make them contraband, just because *you* think I don't "need" them.

Firstly i'd point out that over 3 million Vietnamese died to 50,000 US soldiers. If the govt dissolved to the point where the vast majority of the population was in open insurrection many other things would happen before it dissolved into armed conflict anyway, its silly to even argue it.

And yet the Vietnamese now control ther own goverment. You then go on to confirm *my* position that the balance of power is much more complicated than a simple head-to-head slugfest where higher firepower always wins and thus whoever has fewer/smaller weapons doesn't stand a chance so they might as well surrender before anything happens.
It *is* silly to argue about it in those terms...why are you?

[Griff]

Its a simple matter, they don't trust you. Among all the other things I use to measure politicians I apply the L. Neil Smith test. If they don't trust a citizen with a gun, I don't trust them with a vote.

[Undertoad]

A couple of things:

Jag, the militias would not have been addressed by the gov't. They tried to address armed religious nuts in Waco. It didn't really work too well, and that wasn't even a militia. (The OKC "blowback" did come via a militia though, if there is any truth to the common notions about what really happened.)

The notion that one cannot manage an entire revolution with peashooters because the feds have bigger weaponry is true. But arms in the hands of the common citizen has prevented the NEED for revolution! There is a big limit to how oppressive the government can act, and Waco is evidence of that point, and a sobering reminder to everyone involved.

My 89-year-old grandfather used to get letters from the IRS that he would just set aside and ignore. Why: well he was 89, he didn't think he had long for the world, and I suspect he just got fed up with the nonsense. Why did they send LETTERS when it would be much more effective to send AGENTS? Because if you send agents to many parts of the country, including the "deep north" of New Hampshire where my grandfather lived, they will get their asses blown off with a load of buckshot. This is an effective control on power, in this case a control on the agency most likely to deny citizen's rights.

Defining "arms" is simple; by their original definition or the current one, they are carryable weapons, an extension of the arm. Tanks don't count if they include big guns, and nukes are Right Out.

Arms in the hands of citizens has the effect of distributing real power to the lowest levels. This does lead to a certain noise level of tragedy as some people are incapable of handling their responsibilities. I'm convinced that it prevents a larger level of tragedy in crime and, eventually, in government overstepping its limitations.

[jaguar]

Maggie you’re in a debate, you have to be able to justify your actions and words on issues that are directly related to the debate. Secondly cars are designed to transport people, computers are designed to process information on the other hand assault rifles are designed to fire bits of lead at really really high speeds many times a second to kill things. It’s not a dual-use device like a computer or a car can be, it’s designed to kill stuff, full stop. Big difference. If I’d asked you why you own a car, you'd have a point, I asked you why you wanted to own a high-power firearm designed for killing people (originally) that’s entirely on topic.

Tell me why I cannot have a weapon at my disposal.

Because you have no justifiable reason for needing one. Why can't I have a library of cracking tools, why can't I modify my own hardware in the future?

Defining "arms" is simple; by their original definition or the current one, they are carryable weapons, an extension of the arm. Tanks don't count if they include big guns, and nukes are Right Out.

Really? Got a source for that? Arms I’d take to be a shortened version of armaments which includes everything from single shot pistols to 20mm chain guns on choppers to daisy cutters to nukes.

The woman was assaulted by a man who was drunk, and on psychiatric drugs. I personally think she should have had the opportunity to defend herself.

How about some fucking pepper spray? Situation can be resolved without killing people. This I’m sure is news to the NRA. Tasers, teargas, screamers, non lethal ways of disarmaments are bloody effective, I’d argue more effective in some situations and no one dies. That’s the most important thing in my book.

And yet the Vietnamese now control their own government

You really want to get started on Vietnam? Fine. Firstly if you send a battalion of ordinary Vietnamese into battle, and a battalion of ordinary Americans, you'd have a few thou viets left and no Americans. Secondly look at the toll, the damage decades of war ahs done to the place will take centuries to recover. Thirdly half the reason America lost (the actual battle, not would have happened afterwards) was because a swing in public opinion at home, not losses on the battlefield. Thirdly it was knowledge of the territory that made them so deadly, if you a real-life idea of casualties in such conflicts look at possibly Israeli actions in palatine or the British in Northern Ireland. Army wins, hands down. My belief is if something happened to cause the majority of the population to insurrect (lets say bush declares himself dictator and burns the bill of rights...oh wait he already....nevermind) the army would dissolve into chaos anyway.

My 89-year-old grandfather used to get letters from the IRS that he would just set aside and ignore. Why: well he was 89, he didn't think he had long for the world, and I suspect he just got fed up with the nonsense. Why did they send LETTERS when it would be much more effective to send AGENTS?

If it was worth it, they'd do it.

[Undertoad]

Arms I’d take to be a shortened version of armaments

Tisn't:

From Middle English armes, weapons, from Old French, pl. of arme, weapon, from Latin arma, weapons; see ar- in Indo-European Roots. V., from Middle English armen from Old French armer, from Latin armore, from arma

But in context, for the purposes of the Constitution, the word is what it was meant when it was written in 1789: carryable weapons. They didn't mean cannons or trebuchets or poison or bombs. They meant knives, pistols and rifles.

If it was worth it, they'd do it.

Exactly; and the presence of guns in the hands of citizens puts a very large constant on one side of the equation. Is it "worth it" to put the agent in harm's way? Rarely. Ergo, it doesn't routinely happen.

What this does is to ensure that there is consent of the governed, because the governed do have the option of the use of deadly force in larger numbers if they do NOT consent. It is a wonderful way to ensure that there is not need for true revolution and much, much greater loss of life.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Maggie you’re in a debate, you have to be able to justify your actions and words on issues that are directly related to the debate. .

Hold on a minute. You're "begging the question", (another one of those argumentation maneuvers you're so fond of).

The debate isn't framed as "prove to my satisfaction why you need a weapon or give it up"...although <b>you'd</b> certainly like to cast it that way, of course. <b>I</b> say, if you want to usurp <b>my</b> right to defend myself in the manner I choose, the burden is on <b>you</b> to demonstrate a compelling reason to do so. Your best move on that score so far is "sometimes people get shot", which is feeble at best.

"The only purpose of a gun is to kill" is another prohibitionist slogan based in a gross oversimplification, the implication being that if a gun isn't used to kill then it has no purpose. If that were true would mean there are lots of cops out there with no reason to have a gun.

One purpose of a gun (ignoring for now the others) is to defend its owner, which it can do <i>witthout ever actually being fired "in anger"</i>. Of course, when this happens it tends to not generate police reports, newspaper articles, or exciting TV drama, so if that's how you learn about the world you might have missed that .

If a gun is never fired in anger, then it may well have <b>succeeded</b> in its purpose.