Political Megathread

[Eric D]

This is what convinced me, I've been a fan since then:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0[/youtube]

watching a few of these...if anyone that doesnt think the USA is responsible for the 9/11 attacks is an idiot. Why the hell would they attack us for shits and giggles. Rudy is a fucktard

I would have to agree, the USA is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. But, do you feel that justifies the 9/11 attacks?

[mr tibbs]

watching a few of these...if anyone that doesnt think the USA is responsible for the 9/11 attacks is an idiot. Why the hell would they attack us for shits and giggles. Rudy is a fucktard

WURD!!!

Doc, you have a lot of growing up to do buddy, I don't care how old you are. Trying to have a civil discussion with you is like trying to argue with a 4 year old. Thus why I left this thread in the first place, there is no discussing anything with someone who has all the answers.

Mass and Fowler, you guys are really pushing me in the direction of Dr. Ron Paul. At least he says all the right things, I'll have to look into him some more. Normally I vote on the democratic side of things, but I am still open to other ideas, and this guy seems to be talking my language.

[Eric D]

watching a few of these...if anyone that doesnt think the USA is responsible for the 9/11 attacks is an idiot. Why the hell would they attack us for shits and giggles. Rudy is a fucktard

WURD!!!

Doc, you have a lot of growing up to do buddy, I don't care how old you are. Trying to have a civil discussion with you is like trying to argue with a 4 year old. Thus why I left this thread in the first place, there is no discussing anything with someone who has all the answers.

Mass and Fowler, you guys are really pushing me in the direction of Dr. Ron Paul. At least he says all the right things, I'll have to look into him some more. Normally I vote on the democratic side of things, but I am still open to other ideas, and this guy seems to be talking my language.

I do have a lot of growing up to do. I am not very old in the first place.

But it is hardly like I am the only one who makes discussions uncivilized.

When I discover the discussion falling apart and can tell those I am contesting are not even reading my posts anyway, they only choose to attack tidbits of it on technicalities alone, I return the favor in my own little way. By getting as unprofessional as I can, at least I gain some amusement from it. Much like a 4 year old would.

I don’t profess to have all the answers, as I don’t. But I have a nearly endless supply of opinions, something which condemns me on a primarily left leaning public forum.

[stipud]

It is pretty clear I have lost this argument (actually I don’t even know what the argument really is, which further complicates things), so I will just leave off with a bit of explanation as to my madness.

It's a discussion. The flow of the topics changes as dynamically as any other chat amongst friends. You start talking about cars, but somehow you end up talking about girls, or the weather, or anything else of interest. Along with this discussion we have thrown in our random debates.

This just helps keep things interesting, the last thing I want is to have some biased back-patting to happen, where everyone is either bashing or congratulating bush. If you want that, go to the democrat or republican forum. If there is going to be any point at all to having political discourse on this forum, it will be because of our diverse backgrounds and educations. We all have differing opinions which we like to share and discuss. This is why I don't want to see it turn into personal mudslinging or fighting stereotypes, because it's actually fun to argue sometimes. If we can't have a simple discussion about or views of politics, then there is no point in discussing them.

Today as many people know, the USA is divided. Democrats on one side, and Republicans on the other. It is wrong of me to make anything black or white. However, sifting through the grey is nearly impossible, and I am confident useful information can still be drawn from a black or white point of view. Both sides of the spectrum are highly passionate about their points of view, this does not make anyone wrong or right.

Not only is the USA divided into two political parties, but the entire nature of political discourse and the media lately has been towards polarizing either side. Instead of shades, you can no longer be "partially democrat" or "partially republican" anymore. You can't just agree with both sides, or come to a happy medium, because it doesn't exist.

You are either a "democrat" or a "republican"... stamped and decreed. Both sides are growing further and further apart due to this increasing popularity of missing out on the shades of grey. The thing is, there is no such thing as a true republican or a true democrat, it is just a collection of individual ideas of people who form into groups. One Democrat may have radically different ideas than another. So to base your opinions of democrats or republicans on the opinions of a select few of them, or some stereotypes, is highly erroneous, especially if the opinions are filtered through a biased medium... e.g. getting all of your information about the Democrats from Geraldo Riviera, or getting all of your information about Republicans from Keith Olbermann.

I feel this whole topic can be solved by looking at the foundation of the debate, not the surface. This foundation is two words, fantasy and reality.

Generally fantasy has a negative connotation when discussing politics, but that is not where I am going with this, nor is it what I am trying to convey. Here is an example.

At one point I had hopes and dreams. I planned to become an engineer and get a great job working for NASA. This was my fantasy.

Today I work as a maintenance man in a dirty machine shop. This is my reality.

Democrats live in a fantasy world, or at least they are trying to move society towards that fantasy. There is nothing wrong with this. A utopian society would be great. I am confident if everyone in the USA were Democrats or left in general, society would be just fine.

Democrat or liberal/socialist ideas and policies work for quite a few countries as well, in reality. The UN ranks Norway as the best country to live in, followed by Sweden, Canada, Belgium, Australia and the US. I know you hate the UN, but there must be something to their argument? I have actually been to all of the above countries, except for Australia, and I can say that things are indeed excellent everywhere. The policies in place in Norway might not work in the USA due to your different cultural and ideological backgrounds, but that's not to say that the ideas are utopian and would never work in reality. In fact they work extremely well sometimes.

Sadly enough, even totalitarianism works in some cases. For example, the politics of the middle east are too irrational to even guess upon. Saddam may have been a total dipshit, but he was the only one who could keep his countries conflicting internal ideologies and religions from tearing itself apart. Many parts of the middle east are still in feudalism, run in tribes, or with warlords controlling regions.

Every ideology has their issues and problems. People leech off of welfare, or companies leech off of people. It's just human nature working itself out in sociological means. However, that doesn't mean that those ideologies are wrong, or destined to fail. There is no true answer, or at least, it is well beyond the capability of human perception to come up with that.

Now here is another example. In a utopian society as Democrats would like to see it, if someone commits a crime, they would be sent to rehabilitation and could then re-enter society and function in society. This sounds good and would be great. But this is not what happens. In our society someone commits a crime, goes for rehabilitation and then when they enter society, high numbers commit the crime again.

Don't you think this could be interpreted as a difference of societies instead of politics? I would say the rate of crime in America has a lot more to do with it's past, than the parties currently ruling it. Slavery, or black oppression, the ghettoes, urban life... there are way too many other factors to think of than "Democrat" or "Republican".

In many societies, rehabilitation does work, because the infrastructure is properly built in order to truly give people the help they need. Unfortunately switching to that would require an instant ideological shift of a whole society, and that isn't going to happen easily, anywhere. This leaves a question of balance... who do you rehabilitate, and who is doomed to execution? This is more of that grey area of politics that the black and white view can't possibly cover.

In a Democratic utopia, you would need no locks on your doors. Well, today all locks do is keep honest people out.

In a Democratic utopia, there would be no guns. Well, today if you ban all guns, the criminals will still have just as many, so where does that put society?

Banning guns has worked in many countries, just as having guns has worked in others. Banning guns in the UK reduced the crime rate and the amount of guns in criminals hands. Allowing guns in the US allowed you to have your independence from Britain.

The Democrats work for a utopia on one side of the fence, and I guess the Republicans are working for their own version of utopia, which my best guess could be compared to the Wild West. Fend for yourself, make your own fortune, and use force when necessary.

This is why I was trying to bring up neoconservatism earlier. I believe that as a true republican you should consider the possible damage that the neoconservatives may be doing to a traditionally conservative party. The foundation of neoconservativism is that people need to be misled into a common goal, or a "good against evil" fight, in order to keep from going crazy with their freedom. The truth is there is no "good against evil" in the world, again this is another black versus white myth that is just created to polarize and control people. I highly encourage you to watch the three videos that Fuzzy posted on the previous page. I don't expect you to agree or disagree, but simply to become informed, so that you can be more aware of your decisions as a responsible voter.

To be true to yourself, I challenge anyone to read what I just posted, think about it deeper than I could post in this space, and ask yourself where do you think we stand between the “Utopia”, and the “Wild West”? Then ask yourself what direction you would like to move, and if you think it is possible for the nation to move that direction.

This is why it is difficult to label me to any political category. I am probably a utopian socialist, because I would like to live in friendship with everyone, but realistically speaking my ideologies are much more conservative, to the point of Libertarianism. I know people are fucked, so I would like to have as little to do with them as they would with me. I do my thing, you do yours, and as long as we don't fuck with eachother, everyone is happy. That said, I know I have been fed my life on a silver plate, ergo I also have no qualms supporting those who deserve help in certain cases.

Democrats are pretty optimistic about the future, so I will label them the party of “optimism”.

Republicans are pretty realistic about the future, so I will label them the party of “realism”.

I disagree with this, I think both objectives are realistic, but both of them require societal change to work. Neither goal is perfect for everyone, so this is why I advocate shades of grey...

It is very easy to think in terms of black and white. Why do you think religion is so popular? It answers the questions in life that are too difficult to completely answer. However, I realize that even if there was an answer to these questions, we would not be able to rationalize it as human beings. It's simply beyond our scope of rationality. Because of this I take no comfort in the "truths" put forth by religion, stereotypes, politics, or anything else.

[stipud]

But it is hardly like I am the only one who makes discussions uncivilized.

When I discover the discussion falling apart and can tell those I am contesting are not even reading my posts anyway, they only choose to attack tidbits of it on technicalities alone, I return the favor in my own little way. By getting as unprofessional as I can, at least I gain some amusement from it. Much like a 4 year old would.

Please tell me you aren't talking about me in this case. I have read every single word, and replied to each one of your thoughts with my own, breaking down and challenging or agreeing with each point.

[Eric D]

That is a damn good analysis of my post, and nearly all of it makes sense to me.

However, can you clarify one tidbit?

Do you have any evidence that the UK has less crime than before due to banning guns. I have read just the opposite of this.

I have also read horror stories of people who secretly kept guns for personal protection and when their homes were broken into and their personal security violated, they chose to use their guns. They now sit in prisons for illegally having guns.

Even more appalling I have read that the UK government was putting training programs in place to teach average citizens how to care for gun shot wounds due to the increase in gun crime since banning guns.

[Eric D]

But it is hardly like I am the only one who makes discussions uncivilized.

When I discover the discussion falling apart and can tell those I am contesting are not even reading my posts anyway, they only choose to attack tidbits of it on technicalities alone, I return the favor in my own little way. By getting as unprofessional as I can, at least I gain some amusement from it. Much like a 4 year old would.

Please tell me you aren't talking about me in this case. I have read every single word, and replied to each one of your thoughts with my own, breaking down and challenging or agreeing with each point.

Nope, that was for Mr. Tibbs. I probably have more respect for you than you may believe.

[Eric D]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gun+crime+UK

Looks like competing facts and figures, but I don’t live there, therefore I have no direction on the matter.

[mr tibbs]

Normally I would be reading your posts, but when I am told to "shut the fuck up", I can tell that your mind is closed and you have digressed back to being 4 years old, so what is the point of trying to have a discussion with you?

Obviously you feel that your beliefs are the correct ones for everyone so you have no reason to listen to anyone else. Hence the reason I shut you out. Now, if you want me to listen to your opinions on the matter, then your going to have to suffer through listening to mine, that is the way a discussion works. I'm not saying by any means that you have to agree with me, just listen with an open mind. If you can do that sir I will be happy to return the favor.

[stipud]

That is a damn good analysis of my post, and nearly all of it makes sense to me.

However, can you clarify one tidbit?

Do you have any evidence that the UK has less crime than before due to banning guns. I have read just the opposite of this.

I have also read horror stories of people who secretly kept guns for personal protection and when their homes were broken into and their personal security violated, they chose to use their guns. They now sit in prisons for illegally having guns.

Even more appalling I have read that the UK government was putting training programs in place to teach average citizens how to care for gun shot wounds due to the increase in gun crime since banning guns.

You have caught me in using a poor example, I did not have all the facts pertaining to the UK and gun banning, but I was using them as an example based on the biased information I have been fed.

I have just looked into it, and there does seem to be more than I had initially thought on this topic, so until I have more time to properly educate myself on the subject, I retract my point about the UK. It does appear that there are many conflicting statistics regarding UK gun control policies. My apologies. However, based on the negative reviews, one must wonder why the crime rate has been increasing so substantially. Perhaps it is a reaction to the negative media attention and societal polarization affect we have been getting into lately? Maybe it's not the gun control at all? Who knows. It appears that their policy was poorly developed as a knee-jerk reaction, hastily implemented, and a typical federal gaffe.

My initial point remains though that there are countries where gun control on certain levels does work. It is never perfect, but neither is the opposite end of the spectrum. Arming everyone would be just as dumb as disarming everyone. There's the good old grey area again. What I do know is that in all the countries I have been to, I have never feared for my life, felt threatened about getting shot, stabbed, or robbed.

I personally do not believe in gun control, but I also don't think that people should be walking around with automatic rifles either. There comes a point when it's just overkill... if everyone owned a nuke would we be safer? There's that grey area again

I fully support hunters, but not murderers, poachers, or ego strokers. I think modest handguns and 22's are lots of fun, and some of the bigger hand cannons can still be legitimately used by collectors and people trained and responsible enough to use them. That said, I choose not to own a weapon, because it would not give me any sense of security.

[Eric D]

Normally I would be reading your posts, but when I am told to "shut the fuck up", I can tell that your mind is closed and you have digressed back to being 4 years old, so what is the point of trying to have a discussion with you?

Obviously you feel that your beliefs are the correct ones for everyone so you have no reason to listen to anyone else. Hence the reason I shut you out. Now, if you want me to listen to your opinions on the matter, then your going to have to suffer through listening to mine, that is the way a discussion works. I'm not saying by any means that you have to agree with me, just listen with an open mind. If you can do that sir I will be happy to return the favor.

Where did I say you specifically should “shut the fuck up”?

I know where I posted that, and it was a generic statement directed at those who complain when they have nothing to complain about.

Don’t take my posts out of context to suit your needs. All this does is cause others to loose confidence in your understanding of the English language.

If you continue to take things so personally, discussions like these will only frustrate you.

[stipud]

Where did I say you specifically should “shut the fuck up”?

I know where I posted that, and it was a generic statement directed at those who complain when they have nothing to complain about.

In all fairness I did think you were talking directly to him as well, since it was just the two of you arguing at the time, which is why I came into this thread in his defense. Perhaps we should just agree to not say things like "shut the fuck up" in such heated debates as these, as it is quite easy to take that personally and get offended.

[Eric D]

Any gun in the hands of a human has the ability to kill. Why limit what gun it can be?

For arguments sake, I don’t lump RPGs or nukes into the equation. A nuke in the hands of a depressed individual or someone with psychological problems could be very bad for countless people.

But, an automatic weapon in the hands of such a person is no bigger threat than a single shot rifle. This is considering a far less limited society in which anyone in the crowd could have an automatic weapon themselves.

When criminals can have automatic weapons, the only deterrent a law abiding citizens will have is equal firepower.

[mr tibbs]

Normally I would be reading your posts, but when I am told to "shut the fuck up", I can tell that your mind is closed and you have digressed back to being 4 years old, so what is the point of trying to have a discussion with you?

Obviously you feel that your beliefs are the correct ones for everyone so you have no reason to listen to anyone else. Hence the reason I shut you out. Now, if you want me to listen to your opinions on the matter, then your going to have to suffer through listening to mine, that is the way a discussion works. I'm not saying by any means that you have to agree with me, just listen with an open mind. If you can do that sir I will be happy to return the favor.

Where did I say you specifically should “shut the fuck up”?

I know where I posted that, and it was a generic statement directed at those who complain when they have nothing to complain about.

Don’t take my posts out of context to suit your needs. All this does is cause others to loose confidence in your understanding of the English language.

If you continue to take things so personally, discussions like these will only frustrate you.

Last I checked I understand English just fine, it's when stipud and nico start talking freaky deaky dutch is where I get lost.

Also, I'm not the one frustrated here, my mind is still open to discussion and I have yet to tell anyone to shut up.

[Eric D]

Where did I say you specifically should “shut the fuck up”?

I know where I posted that, and it was a generic statement directed at those who complain when they have nothing to complain about.

In all fairness I did think you were talking directly to him as well, since it was just the two of you arguing at the time, which is why I came into this thread in his defense. Perhaps we should just agree to not say things like "shut the fuck up" in such heated debates as these, as it is quite easy to take that personally and get offended.

Your assumption is dead wrong. Please read my post again. It is specifically worded to be generic.

Let’s try a simple little quiz…

Do you have a job?

Do you have a home?

Do you have food?

Do you have a vehicle (assuming you want one)?

Do you have all of your legs and arms, and do they work?

Are you cancer free?

Do you have someone waiting at home who loves you?

If you answered “Yes” to all of these questions, then SHUT THE FUCK UP, as you have nothing to bitch about. If you simply must bitch, then use your energy solving the above problems for those who are not so fortunate.

It is easy to assume I directed this at Mr. Tibbs, but if it were meant only for him, I would have used him by name.

The only proof I have that it was not directed at him is the simple fact that he might not be able to answer “yes” to all of those questions. I make mistakes in my arguments all the time, but do you honestly think I would open myself up to such a big repercussion had he answered “no” to any of those things? I do not know Mr. Tibbs personally, so I don’t know what his answers would be. If for example he did not have the use of his legs and was in a wheelchair, I would really look like an ass for posting that. Please give me a bit more credit that you are.

I have learned from personal experience not to drag things like “your mom” into arguments. I did that long long ago and directed it at someone who’s mom just died. This as you can imagine was quite embarrassing and really made me feel like shit. I do my best not to make the same mistake twice and try to keep things generic unless I specify the person in particular.

[bdubs767]

Doc two simple question once agian for you? as I dont have time til the weekend to dive into your and tom's post. Dont worry I will though as I hope you know my urge to make and jump into topics like this well enough by now.

1.) Have you read Thomas Moore's Utopia?

2.) Where yould you rather live that Utopia or the Wild Wild West?

Just a simple yes or no will sufice

[Eric D]

Also, I'm not the one frustrated here, my mind is still open to discussion and I have yet to tell anyone to shut up.

I don’t personally buy into that. You keep sidetracking the conversation, and add in counter productive jabs such as the one about me needing to “grow up”. Are you so elitist you feel you are an authority on maturity?

When the conversation falls to simple name calling and personal attacks, that is generally a good sign of frustration on the part of the attacker. But I am no psychologist, so my analysis holds no water.

Text based discussions are so challenging as they are emotion free, yet people leap to conclusions on emotion all the time. Specifically in the case of the “Shut the fuck up” comment I was showing the thread to a co worker and we were laughing about all the people in society who just complain about nothing worth complaining about. At the same time we both said they should “Shut the fuck up!”. With that in mind I laughingly added it at the thread as a post. My mistake for making the discussion amusing.

[stipud]

It is easy to assume I directed this at Mr. Tibbs, but if it were meant only for him, I would have used him by name.

This is an issue of semantics which I don't want to get into. You could see the post in both ways. We cleared up that you didn't mean it to be directed at him, and I am happy with that explanation. Let's move on!

[mr tibbs]

It is easy to assume I directed this at Mr. Tibbs, but if it were meant only for him, I would have used him by name.

This is an issue of semantics which I don't want to get into. You could see the post in both ways. We cleared up that you didn't mean it to be directed at him, and I am happy with that explanation. Let's move on!

Agreed, Doc I can move past all of this if you can. My feelings are not hurt and I would like to see more productive discussion on the issues at hand. Because of some of the discussion and examples in this thread I have been compelled to look into Ron Paul. Without this discussion in this thread I might not have looked into him. I like productive discussion.

[Eric D]

Doc two simple question once agian for you? as I dont have time til the weekend to dive into your and tom's post. Dont worry I will though as I hope you know my urge to make and jump into topics like this well enough by now.

1.) Have you read Thomas Moore's Utopia?

2.) Where yould you rather live that Utopia or the Wild Wild West?

Just a simple yes or no will sufice

You probably know by now I don’t understand what a simple yes or no answer is.

No I have not read Thomas Moore’s Utopia.

I would pick the Wild Wild West over Utopia.

I don’t read. Yes I CAN read, I just don’t. Some of you may be shocked at this. But, put things into perspective…

I am no longer a student. My days of endless time and nothing to do are long since past. Now I have a job. There goes 39 hours a week down the drain. Each night I typically spend doing things with my girlfriend (read: fucking). So that leaves weekends. Well, most weekends I am going somewhere. Either to family or friends, life with a girlfriend (future wife) is busy for both of us.

Now, for my somewhat young age I have amassed a heap of technical knowledge and skill surrounding electronics and mechanics and some other fields. Literally all my free time is dedicated to increasing my technical knowledge, or following politics. Notice I used the word “following” politics, not “studying” politics. I am past the point in my life of making a political difference, now I am onto the point of simply making educated decisions voting. I am not all that interested in the roots of ideologies, just what is going on day to day, and how it directly affects me.

I suppose this is dangerous behavior, but I am not willing to give up any time from my other interests to pursue detailed political understanding.

Also, I still manage to fix some amps here and there in the above mess which is my life.

[Eric D]

It is easy to assume I directed this at Mr. Tibbs, but if it were meant only for him, I would have used him by name.

This is an issue of semantics which I don't want to get into. You could see the post in both ways. We cleared up that you didn't mean it to be directed at him, and I am happy with that explanation. Let's move on!

Agreed, Doc I can move past all of this if you can. My feelings are not hurt and I would like to see more productive discussion on the issues at hand. Because of some of the discussion and examples in this thread I have been compelled to look into Ron Paul. Without this discussion in this thread I might not have looked into him. I like productive discussion.

Sounds good by me...

[stipud]

I would pick the Wild Wild West over Utopia.

I think the garden of Eden would be fucking boring, so it really depends on how you define Utopia. To me a Utopian society is completely different than it is for someone else, so that's a pretty vague term to be throwing around anyways. However, comparing Eden versus the Wild West, I am with Eric on this one.

I don’t read. Yes I CAN read, I just don’t. Some of you may be shocked at this. But, put things into perspective…

I am no longer a student. My days of endless time and nothing to do are long since past. Now I have a job. There goes 39 hours a week down the drain. Each night I typically spend doing things with my girlfriend (read: fucking). So that leaves weekends. Well, most weekends I am going somewhere. Either to family or friends, life with a girlfriend (future wife) is busy for both of us.

... etc

That makes two of us. I can't remember the last fiction I have read. I can't remember reading anything but textbooks or car magazines in the last 6 years, and even then all I do is look at the pictures or summaries. The only things I read now is this forum, or the code I write at work.

[Eric D]

It sucks getting old. I miss the warm comforting feeling of college. When zero responsibility was king.

But I don’t miss all of the mindless wondering drones of society floating around under the umbrella of “higher education”.

[stipud]

Any gun in the hands of a human has the ability to kill. Why limit what gun it can be?

For arguments sake, I don’t lump RPGs or nukes into the equation. A nuke in the hands of a depressed individual or someone with psychological problems could be very bad for countless people.

But, an automatic weapon in the hands of such a person is no bigger threat than a single shot rifle. This is considering a far less limited society in which anyone in the crowd could have an automatic weapon themselves.

When criminals can have automatic weapons, the only deterrent a law abiding citizens will have is equal firepower.

As I said before, limiting the type of gun is every bit of a grey area as limiting the guns themselves.

However, I personally disapprove of automatics in the hands of civilians, because of their ability to kill en masse. I disapprove of them for the same reason you wouldn't want RPGs or nukes... because it just takes one asshole having a bad day to do way too much damage.

Let's say some douchebag goes crazy, and decides he wants to kill himself, but take out as many people as possible on his way out. With an automatic gun in a busy enough place, he could do a hell of a lot more damage with a machine gun than a 22. Even if everyone else was hypothetically armed with machineguns, the reaction time it would take for them to turn around and kill him would probably not be enough time for him to kill numerous innocent people. With say a rifle or a handgun, he would have a much more difficult time killing lots of people before he got killed. This is what I base my justification on.

I just can't think of a legitimate reason to own a fully automatic weapon, or at least one that is significant enough to be worth the risk of killing large groups of innocent people. If you are using hunting, you would simply gib your deer into fragments. I don't see what would be wrong with a semi-automatic rifle or single shot shotgun in this case.

If you think a country where everyone walks around with automatic weapons would be safe, go look at Somalia or other war torn nations where kids were walking on the streets with AK-47's. Giving people this much power would be enough to corrupt the weaker individuals of society into preying upon others

[mr tibbs]

Any gun in the hands of a human has the ability to kill. Why limit what gun it can be?

For arguments sake, I don’t lump RPGs or nukes into the equation. A nuke in the hands of a depressed individual or someone with psychological problems could be very bad for countless people.

But, an automatic weapon in the hands of such a person is no bigger threat than a single shot rifle. This is considering a far less limited society in which anyone in the crowd could have an automatic weapon themselves.

When criminals can have automatic weapons, the only deterrent a law abiding citizens will have is equal firepower.

As I said before, limiting the type of gun is every bit of a grey area as limiting the guns themselves.

However, I personally disapprove of automatics in the hands of civilians, because of their ability to kill en masse. I disapprove of them for the same reason you wouldn't want RPGs or nukes... because it just takes one asshole having a bad day to do way too much damage.

Let's say some douchebag goes crazy, and decides he wants to kill himself, but take out as many people as possible on his way out. With an automatic gun in a busy enough place, he could do a hell of a lot more damage with a machine gun than a 22. Even if everyone else was hypothetically armed with machineguns, the reaction time it would take for them to turn around and kill him would probably not be enough time for him to kill numerous innocent people. With say a rifle or a handgun, he would have a much more difficult time killing lots of people before he got killed. This is what I base my justification on.

I just can't think of a legitimate reason to own a fully automatic weapon, or at least one that is significant enough to be worth the risk of killing large groups of innocent people. If you are using hunting, you would simply gib your deer into fragments. I don't see what would be wrong with a semi-automatic rifle or single shot shotgun in this case.

If you think a country where everyone walks around with automatic weapons would be safe, go look at Somalia or other war torn nations where kids were walking on the streets with AK-47's. Giving people this much power would be enough to corrupt the weaker individuals of society into preying upon others

I'll second that! And to add to that I personally don't see a reason to own a handgun. There is only one animal you hunt with a handgun. I understand they are fun to plunk around with but I still see no reason for owning one.

*yes I own guns and am an avid hunter.