Isn't it possible to use only mustard ? (rhetorical : I will try this way)
And I am curious : is there something specific about those buns ?

That was five, but I'm not currently wearing underpants on my head.

Then again, I don't think I've tried it before...

TL;DR

People are scared of technology as though they are naked tribals running from fire.

OMFG cars kill X people per year; BAN BAN BAN!



The leftist anti-technology cult is a bothersome religion. Separation of church and state yo.

Just like politicians, posters here don't need to call for the banning of all guns. Not all at once, anyway. Incrementalism seems to work best, doesn't it? Some semi-autos here, some armor piercing bullets there. You keep incrementalism up long enough, you get to the same place.

It's a hell of a thing to say that someone has the right to own a gun when the only ones left to own are single shot breach loading .22 rifles (that you'll have to keep unloaded and stored at the local police department). I wouldn't call that owning a firearm so much as renting a child's toy.

Oh I do agree... but not with what you meant.

For one you completely ignore the history of 2nd amendment jurisprudence between the very origin in the late 18th century and the Heller case in the 21st. Eliding 200 years is a neat trick indeed. Considering which years it would be more evident that the common interpretations of the amendment almost from the start were aligned with individual rights, self denfence, and therefore with the Heller ruling. Considering which it would also be obvious the gun control rationales (and rationalizations) started gaining ground well into the 20th century, with Heller being one ruling among others that rather reclaims the historical US tradition against more recent changes.

For another, while focusing on the meaning of arms, you assume a meaning for militia that is normal today and apply it retroactively to the 18th century. Militia just meant armed populace and assumed volunteers, it was not specific to organized state armies, or whatever you'd like to call them.

It sure takes chutzpah to look at the 1780s and 90s context and imagine some 2nd amendment controversy during the ratification debates. As far I know the only substantial disagreement over the 2nd amendment involved the mention of religious persons. Takes even more chutzpah to interpret the text, despite its awkward grammar, to mean almost the complete opposite of what was practiced and culturally normal in the early USA for at least 150 years afterwards.

Neat trick indeed. It's called historical revisionism, and not of the good kind.

Firearms should be banned. At the same time, cold weapons should be legalized. All problems solved.

Ok, here's a different perspective for you guys. We don't have many guns in the UK. There are some, used for farming and hobbyist shooting, but if you interviewed 1000 people in the UK at random, you might find 1 legally owned a gun. We don't even arm our police by default, there are separate trained armed response units.

Sometimes as I walk through a major London station in the morning there are armed policemen there, carrying large automatic rifles. It makes me feel quite uncomfortable, but I accept that they are highly trained and that there are very detailed procedures for investigating any use of those guns.

So, the different perspective - Am I safer because of this? I don't actually care. I like living in a society where there aren't many guns. I enjoy being part of a society where the idea of owning a gun for anything other than occupation (and a some sports) is considered wrong. If I was told that my society would be much safer with less strict gun control, I'd still not want it. In the UK we have a geographical advantage that we border only France (via the tunnel), and are far from the instability of the east. We have a very dense population, and can afford to live without guns. I have to say, I'm really pleased about this, because it's very nice.

People are asking for statistics and "proof" of various arguments, you're not going to get them. I'd be curious to know what level of gun control (and ownership) people would like to see in their society? What level of armament makes it a nice place to live?

Bullshit. The slippery slope argument is sometimes valid, but not in this case. 30 years ago semi-automatic assault rifles were mostly a thing of militaries only. Had we banned them then (or banned them now) that would have no effect whatsoever on the guns that are already readily available and legal. Otherwise, to avoid this inevitable slippery slope, we'd have to have all new weapons developed be made available to the public as they come along. And if those are the only two choices (allowing them all or effectively banning them all due to the slippery slope) then I'll gladly and proudly side with the ban them all crowd, because the day any person anywhere can go pick up weapons of mass or near mass destruction is the day we're all done anyway.

But again, it's bullshit. Those aren't the only two options. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can assess and analyze new guns/weapons as they're developed and decide whether they're appropriate for the general public or not without resorting to any slippery slope at all. In fact, I'd guarantee you the "slope" would work the other way around. As time went on more weapons would be available for the general public, not less. Even if you banned 90% of all new weapons developed every year, you'd still be "growing" the amount and choice of the general public by 10% a year.

So many strawmen, and so many false dichotomies. And so little reality.

That's an easy one: None at all.

Weapon simulators (= blunt swords for HEMA for example or laser-tag / paintball guns) are great for sports but that's about everything I'd want. Using the right material for targets you don't even need sharp arrows for archery.

This would be voluntarily in the best case.

Yeah, I can see you get your "history" from the NRA. Continue on..

Your opinion is perfectly valid, but so is the opinion of anti-wpegg who likes a society with a lot of guns and thinks that's right... therefore the question about what level of armament is nice is irrelevant, because the important question is who decides and enforces "nice" over the others that would rather the alternative. Considering the rationale for gun ownership being a right is connected to a safeguard over precisely that question of who watches the watchers, you immediatelly get tied up into deep political and moral considerations.

Kudos and +1 for the honesty.

I would suggest that is not the case. You can watch the watchers without holding a gun to them. I live in a democracy, the suggestion I need a gun in order to get reform or justice is completely contradictory to that concept. It suggests the person with the gun has more power, and is given more choice in our society.

I argued before that people using the "constitutional defence" argument were nuts because the US military could wipe them out with ease. This was not actually fair. The US or UK military would simply not follow that order. In order to evolve a truly free democracy there needs to be trust that we will all abide by it. I trust that I will not have a gun used on me by "the watchers" because the people with the guns would refuse to use them if instructed.

As long as you're watching your watchers using a gun, you're holding back your democracy.

Here's your judicial history...

That's a funny comment and a logical fallacy.

I'm not a US citizen and therefore couldn't care less for the NRA, even if it was true, it would not disprove my points though. Is argument from authority and guilt by association something you do often?

In the public interest I will point my sources though. Basically Wikipedia. Your claim about some immediate (by which I mean in the 18th century) debate or controversy over the meaning of the 2nd amendment was compleletely new to me.

Surprise (not), there's nothing about it in the ratification section of Wiki. Examples do abound including extensive quotes of how popular opinion was. Here's some select quotes for everyone:

The Second Amendment was relatively uncontroversial at the time of its ratification.

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny.

... the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.

"Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." George Mason

James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.

In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And that's not even the section about scholarly commentary from individuals like Lysander Spooner...