oookay... all sarcasm aside...

To point 1, that's not what I said. You were dallying dangerously close to the trap of logical fallacy by complaining about imperfect laws. To continue with Benson's slippery slope metaphor, pointing to a law's imperfection ("you'll stop law-abiding citizens from doing this but not criminals!") as a reason for its dismissal is a thin sheet of ice to dance upon. The "reasoning" employed, if broadly applied (as logic naturally can be) undermines ALL law, which is naturally imperfect. I'm not sure how that was unclear...

To point 2, I never said the laws themselves are fluid or mobile-- I said the lines they create are. And that is, of course, because laws tend to be struck down, sunset, rewritten, reinterpreted, etc by changing regimes and courts. Again, I don't get why there was any confusion...

I won't speak for JoeF-- I'm sure he's capable. But I think your blanket assertion that your acceptance of an extreme should equate to everyone accepting an extreme (of one sort or another) is patently absurd, and may well point to why you're not grasping what I've been saying about logic and law. It may also indicate why you confuse extreme centrism with passivity.

I don't get the point of believing in something...if you think that following that belief to it's completion takes you somewhere you dont want to be.

Which is also why you dont see me get this involved in many threads...politics, religion, sex, whatever... i might drop a comment or two here or there but ultimately not worth the argument..and typically both sides are right (and for the most part..what you believe in sex or religion has no impact on me).

People's fear of guns and stance on gun control may very well directly affect me... so I have a difficult time not getting involved.

Though you may be rignt about me missing your underlining. The other explanation is I'm just an idiot, crazy "semi-paranoid x-military" gun-nut .. I never did do much... but I have done research on a few topics.

This makes no sense: what is a 100% armed society? Toddlers with guns? What is 100% controlled society? Everyone in jail? These terms do not have any real meaning. Any argument can be made to look foolish by extrapolating it to an extreme.

Fatalsaint:

You claim that you are comfortable with a 100% armed society? Really? I doubt it.

What is your position on the possession of nuclear arms by an individual in the US? Let's say out of the population of the US you could get half a dozen Americans who wanted to build such a bomb. Should they be allowed? (I bet you COULD get more than half a dozen Americans who would do so if they were permitted to.)

And by the way, when you say 100%, remember the discussion of prisoners? I think the US has a higher percentage of prisoners than almost any country in the world. Are they part of the 100%, or do they magically disappear in your calculations?

Like I said; if I'm going to bother believing in something... I may as well not be afraid of where that may lead.

100% is 100%.. that isn't difficult to understand. I'd venture a guess in a 100% armed society you'd have significantly fewer prisoners.. since the vast majority of them would already be dead.

Would there be more crime? Who knows.. everyone carrying a gun might deter more crime.. might cause more crime.. won't know till we see it.

Nuclear weapons?? Let's take practical considerations here.. your average dozen americans can neither afford the parts, nor have any clue how to actual build such a device. Just because we don't place a ridiculous ban on something doesn't mean it's going to magically appear out of no where on every street corner. Your argument would be better using full-automatic weapons, machine guns and the like - THOSE would likely be everywhere.

Not to mention.. with everyone armed.. the likely hood of a dozen americans getting together.. deciding over drinks one night, half-drunk, that they wanna blow and destroy the world.. stumbling off to find their nearest black market... oh wait - everything's legal at this point, no need for black market - stumbling off to find their nearest dealer in plutonium (because that's such a common commodity today).. throwing it all together.. planting it .. and bombing los angeles back to the stone age.. and having no contact with not a single armed citizen that would likely bring attention to themself and these evil-doers is extremely unlikely.

You aren't going to get anywhere with me by using wordage and attacks that are supposed to appeal to my emotions. Useless.

Do I think a 100% armed society is a perfect society?? Meh.. doubtful. I have no idea what it'll look like.. It'd certainly be an exciting place.

And if you don't know what i mean by a 100% controlled society... read a book - or watch a movie. This isn't a rare idea. Equilibrium, 1984, Demolition Man, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, Walden Two... the list goes on.

I personally would rather be dead than be forced to live as a drone, stripped of all freedoms and every action controlled.. "For the good of society".

Both society's suck.. but in the extreme.. I'd take the armed the one.

Does that mean I'll bicker and fight over every single piece of anti-gun legislation you guys come up with? No.. probably not.. the NRA would.. but if the ban makes at least some sense.. I won't scream too loud. The AWB made 0 sense.. and some of the current restrictions do nothing to prevent criminals from getting their guns.. and the CCW licensing seems silly; since I need a background check and everything to make sure I can even OWN the gun... may as well allow me to carry it if I'm OK enough to own it.

What's the point of giving someone a gun if you don't want them ever to handle it?

So yes.. I think some existing laws suck.. I figure some existing laws were done with good intentions. Don't sell to prisoners, OK - I can buy that. Don't sell to people that are known psychopath's .. Ok.. I can buy that too.

Don't sell to this poor guy that checked himself in to a hospital once because he was extremely depressed over the death of his wife and children in a horrible accident, knew he needed help, got it, and is fine now??? - No... I disagree. But the way the current law is, AFAIK, if the guy has any mental health history it's am immediate denial. (Maybe Benson can chime in here).

So as you see.. even laws made with GOOD intentions affect GOOD people.

I do disagree with the stringent controls on Class III firearms (THESE are the assault weapons people.. not that cosmetic crap in the AWB) because it's already a point that.. if Gangs, drug dealers, and the like want their automatic weapons.. they're getting their automatic weapons - and your ban doesn't mean jack to them. It just makes it so people like me.. that pose no threat to you.. can't get one. OTOH - While I can argue the need for a semi-auto AR-15 to defend my home.. I'd be much harder pressed to do so with an M-16.. anything short of an all out apocalypse or the infamous tyrannical government .. and something like this may seem overkill.

And Texrat - I see no approach to logical fallacy when we say you are only preventing law-abiding citizens. The vast majority of firearms used in all crimes, are already illegal. Not to mention the crime itself is, by definition, illegal. What makes you think throwing more and more laws at people who quite obviously already don't give a hoot and hollar about your laws is going to do? Seriously? What do they care if there's just ONE MORE charge added to their pathetic little coffin? By definition, the only people who will be following your laws are law-abiding citizens.. the criminals - the one's you want to stop - by definition don't care about your laws.

Sure.. we need laws to ensure we can punish people after they break them.. but with the current laws so wholly not working - what's the point of stacking on another dozen except to restrict and piss off the normal average American that just wants to go plinking with his cool new Rambo gun?

Not that I want to give you ongoing nightmares, but building a nuclear fission device (not a so-called "dirty bomb", but the real McCoy) is rather easy. All you need is a three storey house, some steel pipe, dynamite, lots of concrete and obviously two half-critical masses of plutonium (for rather apparent reasons one critical mass of plutonium is not what you should bid on on eBay).

Oh, and lots of suicidal henchmen, because you're going to have a high bodycount on radiation sickness during the construction.

The difficulty with fission devices is not that they're hard to construct, but that it's hard to get your paws on the "hot stuff". It was easier fifteen years ago, when the good old Soviet Union imploded and literally entire grams of weapons-grade plutonium were offered on the "free market" (a relation of mine was once offered three grams in Poland. He refused obviously; you need a lot more for a Bomb and --

Excuse me a moment, there appears to be someone at the doo------

[ACCOUNT TERMINATED]

Well, IANAL (should I have mentioned this before? ), and don't really know about this, but in my understanding the law in this is not entirely clear in the first place, but doesn't cover all mental health history, only "dangerous" stuff; no clue how that's defined legally or how it interacts with clinical definitions, but I've heard from people who might know that it is a mess. I believe that it is a denial for all time, even if the dangerous problems were confined to some period in the past.

Well, since I've already staked my tent here in the libertarian fringes, allow me to provide an argument for home defense, though it'll be for an M4, XM177/Commando, or maybe an M16A2 (which I'm guessing you meant) rather than the M16/M16A1/M16A3/M4A1. You probably know the difference, but I'll spell it out; the original M16 and M16A1 had a continuous-fire setting rather than a 3-round burst, which was found to be not very helpful for your typical infantryman; it made it easy to waste ammo and (with enough ammo) ruin the barrel through overheating, all without hitting more people. So with the M16A2, they switched to 3-round burst. Special forces preferred training as a solution, manually firing short bursts when appropriate, so both the M16A3 and M4A1 were produced as later continuous-fire models.

3-round (or so) bursts substantially increase the effectiveness of a rifle versus semi-automatic operation, as the first two or three rounds are fired without much recoil disruption, and you can wait for the muzzle to finish rising and dropping back on target before squeezing off the next burst. It gives more firepower on target (at moderate ranges) than long bursts or semi-automatic. Thus it has substantial advantage for home defense, against unarmored and especially armored intruders. (That said, there are some legitimate technical criticisms of the burst mechanism used in the M16 family, and the M4A1 might be a better choice, contingent on effective fire discipline.)

The reason for the M4 over M16A2? It's shorter, and so handles better inside a house. The shorter barrel gives reduced velocity, which causes serious deterioration in terminal ballistics (for mil-spec ammo) at longer ranges, but nearly identical at short range, so not a problem for home defense. I'm not sure on the Commando's ballistics, as I haven't seen numbers on it, but in an urban environment where shots outside 100 yards are unheard of, or when backed up with a rifle for long-range work, I'd go for it without hesitation. (However, even a semi-auto variant of M4/XM177/Commando is restricted, as it's also a Title II firearm -- a short-barreled rifle. These are handled slightly more liberally than machine guns, as newly constructed or imported ones can still be registered to make them transferable, but the restrictions on a registered SBR are the same as a transferable MG.)

So an M4 is more effective two ways than an M16, it handles better in a house or apartment, and it kills people better. Is it, as a result, needed for home defense? In a literal sense, of course not. You can compensate for the difference with additional training and/or luck. Then again, what weapon is needed, given the choice of a slightly inferior weapon?




Incidentally, if I had to pick any currently-legal AR-15 family weapon, in 5.56, for home defense, I'd probably build a 10.5" or maybe 7.5" barrel pistol with a flat-top upper and quad-rail fore-end with a laser sight, home-made SSC P7 light, and reflex optic.

The 7.5" barrel is actually feasible as a CCW as well, although I can't help but chuckle just as much at the impracticality of toting it under a jacket all day as at the probable dispersion of muggers on drawing it. Better to just stay out of the parts of town bad enough to justify something that bulky...

Example borrowed from juju151's post on page 11 here; mine would have a shorter buffer tube and a green laser. (and look through that whole thread if you're a gun nut like me; there's some pretty sexy AR-15 pistols out there...):

(Not sure about including flip-up iron sights on my build; I think they're ugly, and in the event that both the laser and optic were dead when I needed it, the flashlight would almost certainly not be. A maglite I just rebuilt with the LED and reflector I'd be using has a clearly-defined center beam of 3 feet at 10 yards, and I'd have that registered to POI as well. So even in the event of 2 simultaneous equipment failures, I should easily be able to put shots in a 1 foot circle from across the room...)

Well....

Well put Benson!! I forgot to address the SBR.. good catch on that. When I purchased mine I wanted one similar to what you described.. but would rather have had the 11" or 14.5" (after hider).. the ballistics IIRC of a typical M4 with the 14" barrel should still be lethal at 100 yards.. if a shot such as that were needed.. and then of course, as you addressed.. much easier for use inside a home. But.. because of the rules - I ended up with a 16" (I don't like the permanently attached hiders), Quad-rail, troy flip-up battle rear-sight, but a fixed iron on front. And a vertical fore-grip because I could.

You got me on the burst as well.. I was too focused on the "full" auto and forgot the Burst of most modern M16/M4 rifles. In the military, the ones I particularly used were continuous-fire.. (M4A1 as you described, IIRC).

That is an example of the scariest, most irresponsible thinking imaginable.

That sort of approach leads to collapse of civilized societies. History is littered with their fossils.

The logical fallacy construction begins once one utters the words "this won't stop determined criminals..."