Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?


PDA






Pages : [1] 2 3

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 06:57 PM
Hello, I am new to this forum. I probably disagree with most of you here on several issues. I own no guns, and frankly they scare me. I believe in gun control. I believe in what President Obama is trying to do on this issue. I joined this forum hoping for some respectful debate and to learn the thoughts of those who don't agree with me on these subjects.

Let me start with a basic question: why do you guys keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment? I have studied most of the major gun proposals: the three being most talked about are a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, a limitation on high capacity gun magazines, and a closure of the loophole for private sales (in which background checks are currently not necessary.) It seems to me that none of these ideas would violate the 2nd Amendment. So why keep bringing it up?



Moderator comments made necessary by repeated behavior
Enough with the troll talk

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

Look, if you don't want to talk to this man, then don't talk to him.

Staff will let this continue. Exercise your debating skills or stay silent.

If you call timmy a troll, or can't control your temper on-line, you will get an infraction.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ashcons
January 25, 2013, 07:03 PM
Well, what does the Second Amendment say? Equally important, if the Second Amendment appears to be unclear to you, what does the discussion in the body politic at the time surrounding the ratification of the Bill of Rights say about the principle of arms ownership? This will require some homework and critical thinking on your part that should make you ask questions outside of your comfort zone (that isn't meant to be a snarky response). When I get free time later, I will write a response to your questions, though I am sure others will cover the important points before that happens.

Welcome to THR.

Baba Louie
January 25, 2013, 07:03 PM
timmy4
It's because of the history behind the 2nd and the last four words in it probably. You do know why the 2nd was added to the BORs and why the last four words were adamant, correct?

There used to be a thread called "I'm an anti with questions" If you can use the search function, it makes for some fascinating reading.

Welcome to THR by the way. Enjoy your stay.

Maybe you can educate us and vice versa?

hso
January 25, 2013, 07:08 PM
You should spend some time researching the basis for why we oppose the restrictive aspects of the proposed legislation before diving in too deep.

2nd Amendment - The wording is "the right shall not be infringed". This means that nothing to limit or undermine the right to keep and bear arms is permitted by the Second Amendment.

Violent crime rates reported by the FBI Uniform Crime Report and the BJS NCVS have been dropping since the expiration of the old AWB. The same UCR shows modern sporting rifles and their magazines that Sen. Feinstein has wanted to ban for the past 20+ years constitute a tiny fraction of all murders. Even the National Research Council report done for the Clinton administration stated there were too few of them used in crimes to be statistically relevant. Murder rates reported by the FBI and the homicide rates reported by the NCVS have fallen to nearly half of the high for this generation and have fallen since the expiration of the '94 AWB, where the NRC stated they weren't relevant, while these firearms have become more popular with the public they can't contribute to a rising violent crime rate that is actually falling.

These rifles have been used in hunting and personal defense since the '60s. They have been used for competitions for 20+ years. Today there are more participants in official competition with them than competitive shotgun competitions. Articles on their suitability for hunting are found in every hunting publication. Ads for their hunting use date back to the late '60s. Reviews of their performance are found on hunting websites. Television programs focused on hunting have featured them specifically with respect to deer hunting and controlling destructive feral hog populations. The US Park Service and National Forrest Service contract for feral hog control services using these firearms. "Traditional" hunting rifle manufacturers like Remington have invested in tooling and added these types of rifles and offer them specifically for hunting. Any search for "AR deer hunting" or "AR hog hunting" will provide sufficient evidence these firearms are used for hunting. These days they easily meet the definition of sporting firearms.

Recently in Rochester NY a resident used an AR to protect himself and roommate against armed intruders. This occurs every year. Departments of the U.S. government issue RFPs for "personal defensive weapons" requesting bids for these rifles. These modern rifles are used effectively for personal defense by citizens and the federal government departments and agencies define them as personal defense weapons. Prohibitionists say these firearms have no use for personal defense, but the government itself says they are suitable for personal defense.

Government and university studies show that firearms are used from half a million to 2.5 million times a year to stop violent crime. http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm That's a remarkable contrast to the roughly 8,000 murders committed with every type of firearm reported in the FBI UCR. This is also in contract to the sporting uses in hunting and competition noted earlier and the personal defensive definition of government RFPs. Prohibitionists that claim they're "just for killing" ignore the facts that they're used to save lives as well as in sport and recreation.

Senator Feinstein has been promoting the same agenda for 20+ years while violent crime rates drop, personal defense and sporting use of these firearms increases. Her attitudes, information and legislation are at odds with the facts, government data, and the increasing popularity of these firearms for sport, hunting, and personal defense. It is important to study the data, facts and opinions before espousing that of others.

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 07:10 PM
Let me be more specific: first off, I don't see where the 2nd Amendment says that guns cannot be regulated. Removing the private sales loophole should not be a question of 2nd Amendment rights one way or the other.

You could make a better argument, in theory, that banning certain types of firearms and high capacity magazines might violate the 2nd Amendment. But that argument fails in logic, because we can't allow private citizens to have any kind of ordnance. For instance, you would not want your neighbor to possess a nuclear suitcase bomb. Therefore, we should all be able to agree that there are SOME limitations, and once we agree to that point, none of this falls under the Second Amendment.

Again, I am not arguing at this point that these proposed new restrictions make sense (in my opinion, some do and some don't.) I am simply arguing none of them violate the 2nd Amendment as it was written.

BobTheTomato
January 25, 2013, 07:12 PM
I would suggest you read Larry Correia's piece on gun control:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

This would be a good start as to how these are "feel good" measures that wont really do anything. Also, most of us know the second amendment is about self defense and protection from tyrannic government (don't forget governments killed over 100 million of their own people in the 20th century). In almost all cases they disarmed those they planned to kill. Lastly, those who say we need to do this make sure they are protected by men armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. If you only need 10 rounds for self defense it would seem 30 secret service agents with 10 round mags should do just fine to protect 1 man.

hso
January 25, 2013, 07:12 PM
nuclear suitcase bomb

Poor argument since it is not a personal firearm.

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 07:16 PM
Poor argument since it is not a personal firearm.
I don't think a nuclear suitcase bomb is a poor argument, but if you'd like, how about a rocket launcher?

Are you really arguing that per the 2nd Amendment, there can be NO limitations on privately owned firearms? I doubt the Supreme Court would support you on that.

skeeziks
January 25, 2013, 07:17 PM
"I don't see where the 2nd Amendment says that guns cannot be regulated."

Regulate = Infringe

BobTheTomato
January 25, 2013, 07:17 PM
Timmy,

What restrictions are acceptable for speech? How about search and seizure? There are several other amendments I could ask if you are okay at approaching from a slippery slope argument. If you can limit something, you can keep making arguments to take more and more rights away.

CmdrSlander
January 25, 2013, 07:17 PM
Let me be more specific: first off, I don't see where the 2nd Amendment says that guns cannot be regulated. Removing the private sales loophole should not be a question of 2nd Amendment rights one way or the other.

You could make a better argument, in theory, that banning certain types of firearms and high capacity magazines might violate the 2nd Amendment. But that argument fails in logic, because we can't allow private citizens to have any kind of ordnance. For instance, you would not want your neighbor to possess a nuclear suitcase bomb. Therefore, we should all be able to agree that there are SOME limitations, and once we agree to that point, none of this falls under the Second Amendment.

Again, I am not arguing at this point that these proposed new restrictions make sense (in my opinion, some do and some don't.) I am simply arguing none of them violate the 2nd Amendment as it was written.
Actually any restrictions on privately held arms (arms being the weapons of an infantryman, not ordnance, which are explosives, etc. There is a reason it says "arms" not "weapons" - you can regulate weapons, but within the subcategory of weapons that is "arms" you cannot regulate) does violate the Second Amendment as it is worded. It is an incredibly broad and radical statement, perhaps the broadest declaration of a right in the Bill of Rights. We let some restrictions fly because they aren't very onerous but others are challenged. With the right court we could strike down the NFA, large swaths of state gun laws, etc.

Siaharok
January 25, 2013, 07:17 PM
Hi Timmy,

I really hope that you're sincere about being here for a respectful debate. If that's true, then you're about to be exposed to a lot of eye-opening information -- stuff that you probably haven't thought of. I hope, in the spirit of your first post, you will take the time to truly digest what is presented.

Re: the nuclear thing. This always comes up. Anti-gunners love to leap from rifles to nuclear weapons. Why? It's just silly.

But to answer your silly question, the 2nd Amendment is clearly talking about "arms" that are carried by infantry. The whole idea was for the average person to have access to whatever weaponry the infantry was carrying. In that day and age, it was a musket. Today, it's an AR-15.

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 07:20 PM
I would suggest you read Larry Correia's piece on gun control:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

This would be a good start as to how these are "feel good" measures that wont really do anything. Also, most of us know the second amendment is about self defense and protection from tyrannic government (don't forget governments killed over 100 million of their own people in the 20th century). In almost all cases they disarmed those they planned to kill. Lastly, those who say we need to do this make sure they are protected by men armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. If you only need 10 rounds for self defense it would seem 30 secret service agents with 10 round mags should do just fine to protect 1 man.
You make several points here. I don't want to get into the "feels good but wouldn't do anything" debate right now, because it's a separate issue from the 2nd Amendment. But you raise the issue of a tyrannical government. I don't believe that we are close to that, or that these restrictions would bring us closer to that, and most important of all, I don't believe that private firearms would ever protect you against a tyrannical government. Perhaps in 1776, but in 2013, against modern technology? Not a chance. It's really a moot argument, IMO.

Skribs
January 25, 2013, 07:20 PM
First of all, I respect you not trolling. Most of the anti's we get are people pretending to be gun owners baiting us to say we agree in "reasonable restrictions." So let me spell out for you my position, which is I believe the position of many people here...

1) The second amendment was put into place for the purpose of defense against tyranny or invasion, as evidenced by papers written by the founding fathers. If you look at the Bill of Rights put into many state constitutions at the time, you can see that self defense is present, too. The second amendment states "shall not be infringed" and does not include the word "except". This is why we feel the second amendment gives us the right (and hints at the duty) to own the same weapons the military uses...that's how the revolutionary war was won. However, those weapons are already strictly regulated, and the current bans that are being proposed would make this further from the truth.

2) Making something illegal means law-abiding gun owners won't do it. You make private sales illegal, and most law-abiding citizens will follow that law. However, that criminal that stole guns from a law-abiding citizen doesn't care about selling his guns in a face-to-face transfer. Most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally. Making more laws, making them obtained more illegally, won't solve that problem.

3) You reference a magazine ban. It would really serve no purpose except to neuter the self defense capabilities of a citizen. A man going into a school prepared to shoot a bunch of people isn't just bringing the magazine in the gun, he's bringing a backpack full of magazines. If he has to reload an extra couple times (a process that takes only a couple seconds if you're not very good at it), then it's not going to do much to slow his rampage.

However, if the magazine has no bullets in it, it can take some time to load up the magazine. Your average homeowner probably only fills up the magazine in the gun, and not the spares...if he does, it is usually one spare. So making the homeowner have 10 rounds instead of 17 (standard for a Glock) or 30 (standard for an AR) means if they need 12 rounds, they probably don't have a reload available. Think that's a bit much? There was a woman recently who shot an attacker 5 times in the face out of 6 shots from her revolver, and he walked away. If he was determined, her and her kids would have been at his mercy.

4) You say guns scare you. That means you are probably suffering from what is called hoplophobia, an irrational fear of weapons. Are you fine around kitchen knives? Power tools? How about your own bare hands (bare hands are the #1 weapon used in child homocides). The fact is, the gun is just the tool. The vast majority of gun owners (99.9999%) promote safe, responsible use. We aren't likely to draw willy-nilly in the middle of an argument because we understand the moral and legal ramifications. We practice safe handling, so we minimize the chance of a negligent discharge and minimize the damage if one occurs. The firearm is simply a tool, it has no will of its own. We find the best cure for hoplophobia is a combination of education and experience. So it's good you're asking questions here, but I would also suggest you go to a gun range, let them teach you how to safely handle the weapon, and try it out.

I would encourage you to read this blog post. It is written by an author who also is an active member on this forum, and a very smart man. It is long, but answers a lot of questions that anti-gunners have:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

CmdrSlander
January 25, 2013, 07:21 PM
I don't think a nuclear suitcase bomb is a poor argument, but if you'd like, how about a rocket launcher?

Are you really arguing that per the 2nd Amendment, there can be NO limitations on privately owned firearms? I doubt the Supreme Court would support you on that.
The Supreme Court would not support us on that point, you are correct. But the SCOTUS relies on case law and precedent as well as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the former two sometimes conflict with the latter. You have to understand that when dealing with us gun owners you are dealing with Constitutional fundamentalists. I, for one, believe that under the 2A you should be able to have a rocket launcher, and you should be able to cash and carry a machine gun, and silencers should be unrestricted, etc. I believe this because such weapons would be excellent for fighting a modern military, be it a foreign invasion or local tyranny, and fighting those things was the original point of the 2nd Amendment.

If you believe the Second Amendment is irrelevant then we have nothing to discuss because that is like debating a religious issue and starting out with "God doesn't exist but..." - at that point you are entirely opposed to the person you are debating to the extent that you cannot grasp their world view and common ground will never be found.

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 07:22 PM
Hi Timmy,

I really hope that you're sincere about being here for a respectful debate. If that's true, then you're about to be exposed to a lot of eye-opening information -- stuff that you probably haven't thought of. I hope, in the spirit of your first post, you will take the time to truly digest what is presented.

Re: the nuclear thing. This always comes up. Anti-gunners love to leap from rifles to nuclear weapons. Why? It's just silly.

But to answer your silly question, the 2nd Amendment is clearly talking about "arms" that are carried by infantry. The whole idea was for the average person to have access to whatever weaponry the infantry was carrying. In that day and age, it was a musket. Today, it's an AR-15.
Thanks for the kind words. I do hope to learn, and I promise I will keep the debate respectful from my end. I have a great amount of respect for private gun owners. I have no desire to seize your guns, and ban them. I do, however, support a few proposed gun control measures which I consider mild but effective, and I'm honestly puzzled by the resistance.

Ashcons
January 25, 2013, 07:23 PM
You make a great argument for loosening weapons restrictions there. How's our military done in recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan re: fighting a peoples where combatants and non-combatants aren't easily differentiated? Do you suggest that if there were a civil war today that the military and law enforcement would be effective at fighting a war on American soil? Not a moot argument at all, IMO.

Skribs
January 25, 2013, 07:24 PM
You make several points here. I don't want to get into the "feels good but wouldn't do anything" debate right now, because it's a separate issue from the 2nd Amendment. But you raise the issue of a tyrannical government. I don't believe that we are close to that, or that these restrictions would bring us closer to that, and most important of all, I don't believe that private firearms would ever protect you against a tyrannical government. Perhaps in 1776, but in 2013, against modern technology? Not a chance. It's really a moot argument, IMO.

It is absolutely relevant to the second amendment, because the second amendment protects our right to defend ourselves.

Guns might not be much against tanks and helicopters, but the people likely enforcing the rules of a tyrannical government would be police and infantry. It's pretty evident with a lot of the third-world rebellions going on today. They can be fought with firearms.

We might not be close to a tyrannical government (some say we are), but the fact remains the constitution wasn't put in place to protect our rights when tyranny rears its ugly head. It's to keep tyranny out completely.

StrikerPaws
January 25, 2013, 07:24 PM
Timmy,

Why do guns scare you?

SharpsDressedMan
January 25, 2013, 07:26 PM
I would say that if you have to ask, you really don't know what the second amendment is all about. You need to go read it, and get your own understanding. Bear in mind the guys that wrote it just took government into their own hands, by force.

clutch
January 25, 2013, 07:28 PM
Hello, I am new to this forum. I probably disagree with most of you here on several issues. I own no guns, and frankly they scare me. I believe in gun control. I believe in what President Obama is trying to do on this issue. I joined this forum hoping for some respectful debate and to learn the thoughts of those who don't agree with me on these subjects.

Let me start with a basic question: why do you guys keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment? I have studied most of the major gun proposals: the three being most talked about are a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, a limitation on high capacity gun magazines, and a closure of the loophole for private sales (in which background checks are currently not necessary.) It seems to me that none of these ideas would violate the 2nd Amendment. So why keep bringing it up?

Before I indulge you, let me ask you a question, what is your opinion of free speech zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone) ?

That First Amendment is pretty important to us in the freedom culture, almost as much as the Second Amendment that is a bulwark for the First.

Skribs
January 25, 2013, 07:29 PM
Thanks for the kind words. I do hope to learn, and I promise I will keep the debate respectful from my end. I have a great amount of respect for private gun owners. I have no desire to seize your guns, and ban them. I do, however, support a few proposed gun control measures which I consider mild but effective, and I'm honestly puzzled by the resistance.

Your proposed limitation on high capacity magazines would affect the majority of my weapons. Except for sub-compact carry guns and 1911s, most pistols hold more than 10 rounds. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America for sport shooting (both target and action sport) and home defense, and is quickly becoming the most popular (if it isn't already) for hunting. Standard capacity is 30 rounds. We don't have to use all 30, but it's nice to have them there if there's a bad guy that makes us use them in self defense.

Gun control measures are never effective at reducing crime. Criminals do not follow the law, and even if denied this particular tool, they still have access to numerous other devices, all unregulated (kitchen knives, power tools, cars, etc.). In order to stop violence you have to deal with the violent criminals. The gun is just a tool.

CmdrSlander
January 25, 2013, 07:30 PM
Thanks for the kind words. I do hope to learn, and I promise I will keep the debate respectful from my end. I have a great amount of respect for private gun owners. I have no desire to seize your guns, and ban them. I do, however, support a few proposed gun control measures which I consider mild but effective, and I'm honestly puzzled by the resistance.
We resist because the measure you propose would crimp our lifestyles...

...in truth this is the main reason we oppose them, intellectual justifications, for most, come second, not first, on this point.

It turns our stomachs to imagine waking up one day and with the stroke of a pen being less free than you were the day before. Even if restrictions are "reasonable", they are still onerous to those on the front lines of the issue.

We look at countries like Australia and Britain and see that near total disarmament always starts with "reasonable" restrictions. Imagine you are a persecuted minority (maybe you are) and the government said "we want whats best for you and we will never hurt you but would you kindly where this patch that makes you easily identifiable..."

It doesn't inconvenience you that much... but knowing what you know about where that lead the last time someone asked people to do that, would you do it?

StockKahr
January 25, 2013, 07:31 PM
timmy4,

Let's start with some basics. First, do you believe that it would be an infringement of one's Second Amendment rights if the federal government were to restrict the civilian ownership of "arms" to only muzzle-loading muskets and pistols of the type that were available when the Bill of Rights was enacted? Why or why not?

ApacheCoTodd
January 25, 2013, 07:32 PM
This thread is a great example of why we need to take care with postings open to the public. I have no real kind words for "Timmy" and suspect this is being used as a fishing expedition in order to bolster anti-gun arguments.

Really? Confusion or ignorance regarding the why of bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

Even my most liberal of Flagstaff dwelling family members understand the impact of that amendment.

Steel Horse Rider
January 25, 2013, 07:33 PM
If it walks like a troll, quacks like a troll, and dodges like a troll it is probably a troll, but I will take a shot in acting like it isn't a troll.

How do you feel about "regulating" the other rights named in the Bill of Rights? Should you be licensed before you can speak of religion or against the government? Should your 4th Amendment rights against search and seizure be limited to just your person? Should you be compelled to testify against yourself if it is for "the greater good"? I could go on and on but I can't type that quickly. I believe that if you are truly seeking an honest answer that you spend some time in study of the Federalist Papers which were written as a series of newspaper editorials explaining and supporting what was written into the Constitution and why each item is critical to the security of the citizens of the country. The Constitution was written as a limit to the power of government, not as a definition of the rights of the citizens. You may not believe the government is at the edge of tyranny but I think your scope of comparison is too limited at this time to understand what you are using as a standard. Tyranny has become accepted as a government policy in probably 80% of the world so you need to look back historically to a time when men were actually free to be responsible for themselves.

CmdrSlander
January 25, 2013, 07:34 PM
We resist because the measure you propose would crimp our lifestyles...

...in truth this is the main reason we oppose them, intellectual justifications, for most, come second, not first, on this point.

It turns our stomachs to imagine waking up one day and with the stroke of a pen being less free than you were the day before. Even if restrictions are "reasonable", they are still onerous to those on the front lines of the issue.

We look at countries like Australia and Britain and see that near total disarmament always starts with "reasonable" restrictions. Imagine you are a persecuted minority (maybe you are) and the government said "we want whats best for you and we will never hurt you but would you kindly where this patch that makes you easily identifiable..."

It doesn't inconvenience you that much... but knowing what you know about where that lead the last time someone asked people to do that, would you do it?
Granted, being disarmed is not as bad as being a victim of genocide but for many people gun ownership is a huge part of their life, their identity, their employment, and their recreation. Anti-gunners rarely make a career out of being anti gun but many gun owners make a career out of advocating for, manufacturing, and studying firearms. If we demolished all gun laws, you would move on with your life pretty quickly, you might grumble, but your antigun view is only a small facet of your identity. If our gun rights were severely restricted, however, it would end many of our lifestyles and careers. This is why we fight.

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 07:35 PM
First of all, I respect you not trolling. Most of the anti's we get are people pretending to be gun owners baiting us to say we agree in "reasonable restrictions." So let me spell out for you my position, which is I believe the position of many people here...

1) The second amendment was put into place for the purpose of defense against tyranny or invasion, as evidenced by papers written by the founding fathers. If you look at the Bill of Rights put into many state constitutions at the time, you can see that self defense is present, too. The second amendment states "shall not be infringed" and does not include the word "except". This is why we feel the second amendment gives us the right (and hints at the duty) to own the same weapons the military uses...that's how the revolutionary war was won. However, those weapons are already strictly regulated, and the current bans that are being proposed would make this further from the truth.

2) Making something illegal means law-abiding gun owners won't do it. You make private sales illegal, and most law-abiding citizens will follow that law. However, that criminal that stole guns from a law-abiding citizen doesn't care about selling his guns in a face-to-face transfer. Most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally. Making more laws, making them obtained more illegally, won't solve that problem.

3) You reference a magazine ban. It would really serve no purpose except to neuter the self defense capabilities of a citizen. A man going into a school prepared to shoot a bunch of people isn't just bringing the magazine in the gun, he's bringing a backpack full of magazines. If he has to reload an extra couple times (a process that takes only a couple seconds if you're not very good at it), then it's not going to do much to slow his rampage.

However, if the magazine has no bullets in it, it can take some time to load up the magazine. Your average homeowner probably only fills up the magazine in the gun, and not the spares...if he does, it is usually one spare. So making the homeowner have 10 rounds instead of 17 (standard for a Glock) or 30 (standard for an AR) means if they need 12 rounds, they probably don't have a reload available. Think that's a bit much? There was a woman recently who shot an attacker 5 times in the face out of 6 shots from her revolver, and he walked away. If he was determined, her and her kids would have been at his mercy.

4) You say guns scare you. That means you are probably suffering from what is called hoplophobia, an irrational fear of weapons. Are you fine around kitchen knives? Power tools? How about your own bare hands (bare hands are the #1 weapon used in child homocides). The fact is, the gun is just the tool. The vast majority of gun owners (99.9999%) promote safe, responsible use. We aren't likely to draw willy-nilly in the middle of an argument because we understand the moral and legal ramifications. We practice safe handling, so we minimize the chance of a negligent discharge and minimize the damage if one occurs. The firearm is simply a tool, it has no will of its own. We find the best cure for hoplophobia is a combination of education and experience. So it's good you're asking questions here, but I would also suggest you go to a gun range, let them teach you how to safely handle the weapon, and try it out.

I would encourage you to read this blog post. It is written by an author who also is an active member on this forum, and a very smart man. It is long, but answers a lot of questions that anti-gunners have:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
This is a great post. I will read Larry's post, but in the meantime, let me respond to yours point by point:

1. As I wrote earlier, I don't think it's possible to resist a modern tyrannical government with private weapons, should such a tragedy occur. (I don't believe it ever WILL occur.) Therefore, this sort of argument has always struck me as somewhat paranoid- that is not meant to be an insult, but I just don't know what other word to use.

2. OK, here's my rationale for removing the loophole: first, can we agree that it should be illegal for a convicted felon to purchase a gun? Under the current law in most states, this cannot be enforced because a felon can simply purchase a gun from a private seller by lying to the seller that he is NOT a felon- this is already an illegal sale, but it happens all the time because it only takes one person to knowingly break the law- the buyer. Now if we remove the loophole and force everyone to have a background check, the difference will be that in order to have an illegal sale, it will take TWO people to break the law: both the buyer and the seller. According to law enforcement, that will have a significant effect on bringing down the number of illegal sales, and thus gun crimes.

3. Again, I have to rely on the recommendations of law enforcement regarding gun magazines. The limitation is not going to have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes, but is designed specifically to have an effect on mass shootings- the idea being that if the shooter is forced to reload, it will be easier to take him down while reloading, thus lives will be saved. Obviously the example most often given is Jared Loughner.

4. My fear of guns is a personal phobia, but I don't want it to affect my judgment on these issues. Some of you apparently have a fear of government that I might consider irrational. Hopefully we can rely on rationality in terms of discussing all of these issues.

mljdeckard
January 25, 2013, 07:36 PM
Understand, there is no such thing as a 'gun show loophole'. The law at gun shows is exactly the same as it is everywhere else. Under The Constitution, we have the right to assemble peacefully. You can't just walk into a gun show and buy anything off the table you want to. There are people walking around with guns to sell privately, but it's a very small part of the sales there.

The problem we have with the background checks isn't the check. It's the compilation of the information. The information taken on the form you fill out to to a background check isn't as well protected as it should be. Understand, registration inevitably leads to confiscation. (Yes, really.)

Do you think your government is more trustworthy now than it was when The Constitution was written? Consider the possibility that the reason armed resistance against the government seems like such a remote possibility is the fact that our armed population has been a strong deterrent since the nation has existed.

If men with arms are no match for the U.S. military, why can't we finish off al-Queda? Since Obama has been president, Americans have bought enough guns to arm the armies of Russia, China, and India COMBINED. Let's say that the law comes down, come turn them all in, it's done. If even one percent of gun owners resist that order, do you have any idea how many people that is? Compared to all of the police and military in the nation?

The problem with 'mild' or 'common sense' gun control measures, is that they never stop there. It's called creeping incrementalism. Impose one infringement, wait for it to sink in, then impose more. Remember that with gun control laws in 1934, 1968, 1984, and 1989, they were all supposed to do the job, right? If they were working, why do we need more? Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama, and Janet Reno have all flat said that they don't think that people should be allowed to own guns. (I know that you haven't heard this, you have to do some homework to learn what your politicians REALLY think.) They don't just want evil black rifles. They want them all.

Siaharok
January 25, 2013, 07:36 PM
But you raise the issue of a tyrannical government. I don't believe that we are close to that, or that these restrictions would bring us closer to that, and most important of all, I don't believe that private firearms would ever protect you against a tyrannical government. Perhaps in 1776, but in 2013, against modern technology? Not a chance. It's really a moot argument, IMO.So you have 2 arguments here: 1) that you personally don't believe that we are close to a tyrannical government; and 2) that you don't think small arms would make a difference even if we were. I'll address each one separately.

1) That's your opinion. Your personal opinion. You may be right. But what about people who have a different opinion? Personally, I tend to agree with you. We're not there yet. But what if the reason we're not there yet is PRECISELY because of the 2nd Amendment? This brings us to...

2a) Small arms are effective against the US Military. This is not up for debate. There are too many examples in modern history. Small arms have wreaked havoc against the most technologically advanced military in the world.

2b) You also assume that American citizens would be fighting against the US Military. That's a mistaken assumption. You forgot about posse comitatus. The minute the government starts using the military against its own people, there would be nation-wide revolution. They wouldn't use the military; they would use the Police.

And that brings us to my basic stance on the 2nd Amendment: I believe that citizens should be free to have ANYTHING that the Police have. And I truly mean anything. If they can have full auto, I should be free to have it too. If they can have grenades, I should have them too. If I can't have grenades (that's fine), then the Police shouldn't have them either.

Make sense?

mljdeckard
January 25, 2013, 07:37 PM
See, you just used the 'f' word. FORCE. NOW do you see why we are....paranoid?

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 07:38 PM
Lots of questions. I'll do my best to answer them. I am not a troll. Please be patient...

nickn10
January 25, 2013, 07:38 PM
Timmy, I've been in the military, been in law enforcement and retired from the Colorado Dept of Corrections. I am not "scared" of guns, I've taken an oath to protect the Constitution, including the Bill Of Rights while in those above occupations. I don't know how old you are or what your life experiences have been but I can state that the ability to protect yourself, your family and even your country requires a firearm. Don't think for one second that because this is The United States that we are immune to bad things happening to ourselves by individuals, mobs or even our own government. Back when the Bill of Rights was written the army had single shot muskets and so did the civilians. Now however you surely know what weapons the government, be it city, state, or national have at their disposal. Simply put I don't trust any government to have my best interests as their primary goal, therefore I want the best equipment I can get to protect myself with. The latest fiasco proposed by Feinstein does nothing but disarm me and takes away my ability to defend myself against "all enemies both foreign and domestic", hopefully you know where that quote came from. In a nut shell I want the government to fear me rather than I fear them, and they are changing the rules against us.

BobTheTomato
January 25, 2013, 07:38 PM
I don't believe that we are close to that, or that these restrictions would bring us closer to that, and most important of all, I don't believe that private firearms would ever protect you against a tyrannical government.

I would guess the 100,000,000 people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century didn't think that their government would shoot them in head, starve them to death, put them in gas chambers ect. If you don't think our government is capable of doing bad things to people don't forget the USA put people of Japenese decent into camps during WWII. They intentionally infected African Americans with syphilis to see what would happen (and they knew without a doubt that antibiotics were needed did nothing). They have killed Americans with drone strikes who had not been convicted in a court of law. But I suppose your right, the government just wants what is good for us. In most cases we have been taught since grade school that the government is good and benevolent. Well if you look at history you will see that in many cases those in power have done horrible things to others. Or I'm just cynical.

Also, if 10 round are okay what can it be restricted to? 7? 5? 3? 1? Just curious......

CmdrSlander
January 25, 2013, 07:39 PM
This is a great post. I will read Larry's post, but in the meantime, let me respond to yours point by point:

1. As I wrote earlier, I don't think it's possible to resist a modern tyrannical government with private weapons, should such a tragedy occur. (I don't believe it ever WILL occur.) Therefore, this sort of argument has always struck me as somewhat paranoid- that is not meant to be an insult, but I just don't know what other word to use.

2. OK, here's my rationale for removing the loophole: first, can we agree that it should be illegal for a convicted felon to purchase a gun? Under the current law in most states, this cannot be enforced because a felon can simply purchase a gun from a private seller by lying to the seller that he is NOT a felon- this is already an illegal sale, but it happens all the time because it only takes one person to knowingly break the law- the buyer. Now if we remove the loophole and force everyone to have a background check, the difference will be that in order to have an illegal sale, it will take TWO people to break the law: both the buyer and the seller. According to law enforcement, that will have a significant effect on bringing down the number of illegal sales, and thus gun crimes.

3. Again, I have to rely on the recommendations of law enforcement regarding gun magazines. The limitation is not going to have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes, but is designed specifically to have an effect on mass shootings- the idea being that if the shooter is forced to reload, it will be easier to take him down while reloading, thus lives will be saved. Obviously the example most often given is Jared Loughner.

4. My fear of guns is a personal phobia, but I don't want it to affect my judgment on these issues. Some of you apparently have a fear of government that I might consider irrational. Hopefully we can rely on rationality in terms of discussing all of these issues.
Private arms can resist a tyrannical government, again look at the rebellions in foreign climes. There is saying that goes "if you don't have fully automatic rifles on day one of the rebellion you will have them on day two" - the implication is quite relevant: a civilian firearm may not allow you to topple a tyranical regime, but is enough firepower to bust into an armory, hijack a transport, assassinate an enemy leader, take control of a nuclear device from its guardians, raid an ammo dump, steal a tank or a helicopter, and so on. A gun is the first step on a continuum of force in a rebellion, not the only step.

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 07:40 PM
Before I indulge you, let me ask you a question, what is your opinion of free speech zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone) ?

That First Amendment is pretty important to us in the freedom culture, almost as much as the Second Amendment that is a bulwark for the First.
I've never really thought about it too much. I believe in free speech, in general, but there are reasonable limitations (Obviously, the famous one of shouting "fire" in a theater is the best example of a limitation.) All of the Bill of Rights have limitations.

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 07:41 PM
timmy4,

Let's start with some basics. First, do you believe that it would be an infringement of one's Second Amendment rights if the federal government were to restrict the civilian ownership of "arms" to only muzzle-loading muskets and pistols of the type that were available when the Bill of Rights was enacted? Why or why not?
Yes. I think that would be unreasonable. You should as a private citizen be allowed to own modern day weapons- within reason. I don't think, however, this right should be unlimited.

CmdrSlander
January 25, 2013, 07:42 PM
I've never really thought about it too much. I believe in free speech, in general, but there are reasonable limitations (Obviously, the famous one of shouting "fire" in a theater is the best example of a limitation.) All of the Bill of Rights have limitations.
Actually, there is not limitation on shouting fire in a crowded theater, I could go do it right now. They don't tape my mouth shut and bind my hands when I go into a theater. You can get punished for it after you actually do it, and only then. This very different from gun laws which disarm you in the first place to stop you from possibly doing something. Gun laws are like rendering people mute to combat hate speech.

Gun laws should work exactly like free speech restrictions work: you can say whatever you want and you only get in trouble if it hurts people, so with guns, I should be able to own any arm (remember arms do not equal ordnance, such a nuclear bombs) I want but should be punished if I misuse it.

mljdeckard
January 25, 2013, 07:43 PM
Is your perception of what is 'within reason' just a product of what you have been exposed to and have been conditioned to think is normal?

skeeziks
January 25, 2013, 07:44 PM
"All of the Bill of Rights have limitations."

And who put these limitations on the BOR?

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 07:44 PM
If it walks like a troll, quacks like a troll, and dodges like a troll it is probably a troll, but I will take a shot in acting like it isn't a troll.

How do you feel about "regulating" the other rights named in the Bill of Rights? Should you be licensed before you can speak of religion or against the government? Should your 4th Amendment rights against search and seizure be limited to just your person? Should you be compelled to testify against yourself if it is for "the greater good"? I could go on and on but I can't type that quickly. I believe that if you are truly seeking an honest answer that you spend some time in study of the Federalist Papers which were written as a series of newspaper editorials explaining and supporting what was written into the Constitution and why each item is critical to the security of the citizens of the country. The Constitution was written as a limit to the power of government, not as a definition of the rights of the citizens. You may not believe the government is at the edge of tyranny but I think your scope of comparison is too limited at this time to understand what you are using as a standard. Tyranny has become accepted as a government policy in probably 80% of the world so you need to look back historically to a time when men were actually free to be responsible for themselves.
As I wrote earlier, I think that everyone of the Bill of Rights has reasonable limitations to them. Most of the questions you raise are examples of unreasonable limitations. I don't think that is analogous to the gun control measures currently being proposed, but one way or another, the courts will decide.

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 07:45 PM
Timmy, I've been in the military, been in law enforcement and retired from the Colorado Dept of Corrections. I am not "scared" of guns, I've taken an oath to protect the Constitution, including the Bill Of Rights while in those above occupations. I don't know how old you are or what your life experiences have been but I can state that the ability to protect yourself, your family and even your country requires a firearm. Don't think for one second that because this is The United States that we are immune to bad things happening to ourselves by individuals, mobs or even our own government. Back when the Bill of Rights was written the army had single shot muskets and so did the civilians. Now however you surely know what weapons the government, be it city, state, or national have at their disposal. Simply put I don't trust any government to have my best interests as their primary goal, therefore I want the best equipment I can get to protect myself with. The latest fiasco proposed by Feinstein does nothing but disarm me and takes away my ability to defend myself against "all enemies both foreign and domestic", hopefully you know where that quote came from. In a nut shell I want the government to fear me rather than I fear them, and they are changing the rules against us.
Thank you for your service.

Odd Job
January 25, 2013, 07:45 PM
Timmy4, the issue doesn't even have to come down to the 2nd Amendment. The fundamental problem is that they are trying to ban firearms or accessories thereof which have been shown to be involved in a very small percentage of unjustified homicides over the years.
If you had a look at the stats in the UK or SA or Australia, you would find the same thing: rifles are rarely used as a murder weapon. There is no evidence to suggest that the capacity of the magazines has any influence on the number of deaths and criminal injuries caused by any firearm.
The fact remains that the majority of criminal injuries and deaths due to firearms are from handguns. We can have a separate debate about the use of handguns for legitimate and for criminal purposes but the crux of the matter now is as follows:

1) The Sandy Hook shooting was such a terrible and evil crime with the loss of so many young kids that it caused untold heartache and left a bitter taste in the mouths of pro and anti gun persons alike, worldwide.

2) What amplified this was that an apparent weed, a young nobody who we would ordinarily not even spare the time of day, was able to get hold of a firearm and go to a place where he could efficiently kill multiple innocents unchallenged, all by himself.

3) Instead of focusing on the root cause of this event (how this young man arrived at the conclusion that killing innocent people was the solution to his problem), the media and certain political "factions" are focusing on the tool used to commit this atrocity.

The majority of law-abiding armed citizens are being penalized for the acts of the few. That's the easy road, to ban guns and parts for guns.
The hard road is to ask why society in general is drifting towards a centralised "nanny" mentality where individual responsibility and good old fashioned home-taught morals are becoming rare.
And that is the crux of the matter: with individual rights comes individual responsibility.
The government has an objective to chip away at both of those and unfortunately the majority of the population is happy to go along with it. That's how the UK has been and that seems to be the way the US is headed.

itchy1
January 25, 2013, 07:45 PM
Here's my .02. As has already been mentioned, the 2A is the ultimate failsafe against a corrupted government that would attempt to take away the major freedoms of its citizens. This failsafe is only effective if the body of citizens has adequate firepower to keep its government in check. The big qusetion has always been, just where do we draw the line as to what level of firepower that the citizens can possess? The 2A was left open in this respect to allow for whatever level would be necessary to acheive this check or balance. I feel that the current restrictions that are in place has already pushed this line as far as it can go before the citizens lose their ability to present a real deterence for would be dictators. I believe that this is why so many of us refer to the
2A as a protective order against further government restrictions. 30 round magazines and military style rifles in the hands of millions of law abiding citizens should not strike fear into the heart of a government that was originally set up to be a service to its people.

Skribs
January 25, 2013, 07:46 PM
#1, as has been said in this thread, despite all our technology, the majority of war is fought with boots on the ground. Those infantrymen are vulnerable to small arms fire. A lot of countries half-a-world-away are learning that dissidents with guns are a very real threat.

#2, if you cannot trust that felon with a gun, why can you trust him around any other weapon, or even people? If there someone you think, based on his personal history, is likely to cause harm to another person, that person should be kept away from civilization (i.e. in prison). If you trust someone enough to be in society, around kitchen knives, cars, and piano wire, you should be able to trust them with a firearm.

#3, reloads happen very fast, usually not fast enough to rush the individual before he is ready to start firing again. It will have a much bigger impact on a "prepared enough" civilian. I go by LE recommendations, too. They DON'T limit their capacity, and this is a group of people who usually chooses when to engage the perp and brings backup. If I'm by myself, caught unaware, I want every advantage I can get.

#4, I have a very real fear of the government, because right now they are seeking to limit my rights and brand me a second class citizen. Would you have said that a black man in the south in 1820 would have an irrational fear of the government? How about a black man in the south in 1950 having an irrational fear of his white neighbors? Like I said, if you go the range, you'll find that gun owners are a kind, safe group of people, and it's actually a lot of fun. If you practice the four safety rules, owning a gun is no more dangerous than owning a set of golf clubs.

BobTheTomato
January 25, 2013, 07:46 PM
If you want a good article about how the 40% number for private sales is bunk:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 07:47 PM
I would guess the 100,000,000 people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century didn't think that their government would shoot them in head, starve them to death, put them in gas chambers ect. If you don't think our government is capable of doing bad things to people don't forget the USA put people of Japenese decent into camps during WWII. They intentionally infected African Americans with syphilis to see what would happen (and they knew without a doubt that antibiotics were needed did nothing). They have killed Americans with drone strikes who had not been convicted in a court of law. But I suppose your right, the government just wants what is good for us. In most cases we have been taught since grade school that the government is good and benevolent. Well if you look at history you will see that in many cases those in power have done horrible things to others. Or I'm just cynical.

Also, if 10 round are okay what can it be restricted to? 7? 5? 3? 1? Just curious......
Frankly, I'm not sure the restriction should be 10. Anything less than 10 seems unreasonable to me. But 30 seems too high.

CmdrSlander
January 25, 2013, 07:47 PM
As I wrote earlier, I think that everyone of the Bill of Rights has reasonable limitations to them. Most of the questions you raise are examples of unreasonable limitations. I don't think that is analogous to the gun control measures currently being proposed, but one way or another, the courts will decide.
The definition of a reasonable limitation on gun rights has already been determined by DC vs Heller. The decision says you can ban any weapon which is not in common use for lawful purposes. Considering millions of people defend themselves, hunt, and target shoot with guns that are loaded with high capacity magazines, you cannot restrict them per DC vs Heller. They may not be necessary for those purposes but per the Court's decision, the fact that sane citizens use them for those purposes regularly is enough to protect them from restriction.

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 07:48 PM
Is your perception of what is 'within reason' just a product of what you have been exposed to and have been conditioned to think is normal?
This is an excellent question. I would of course like to answer you that my sense of reason is absolute. But what you suggest may also be correct. None of us can escape our life experiences.

StockKahr
January 25, 2013, 07:49 PM
Frankly, I'm not sure the restriction should be 10. Anything less than 10 seems unreasonable to me. But 30 seems too high.

Okay... Too high to do what?

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 07:49 PM
The definition of a reasonable limitation on gun rights has already been determined by DC vs Heller. The decision says you can ban any weapon which is not in common use for lawful purposes. Considering millions of people defend themselves, hunt, and target shoot with guns that are loaded with high capacity magazines, you cannot restrict them per DC vs Heller. They may not be necessary for those purposes but per the Court's decision, the fact that sane citizens use them for those purposes regularly is enough to protect them from restriction.
Is this simply your interpretation, or are you convinced that any limitation on high capacity magazines WILL be overturned by the SC?

BullfrogKen
January 25, 2013, 07:50 PM
But you raise the issue of a tyrannical government. I don't believe that we are close to that, or that these restrictions would bring us closer to that, and most important of all, I don't believe that private firearms would ever protect you against a tyrannical government. Perhaps in 1776, but in 2013, against modern technology? Not a chance. It's really a moot argument, IMO.

Oh, but they can.

We fought a guerrilla war in Vietnam and they held their own pretty well, didn't they?

We didn't begin winning in the current Middle Eastern conflicts until we could get the local government and people to want to stop the fighting.


But that's the real rub, isn't it? I mean, if you knew your goverment was going to become tyrannical, you'd want to keep your firearms to have a chance to resist.

When Germany became tyrannical, a lot of groups wished they'd kept their guns.

When Castro decided he'd rather be dictator than president a lot of people wished they'd kept their guns.


We tend to think things will always be what they always were. But history is packed full of nations who were once great, free societies that respected civil liberties but became tyrannical.

The Germans never thought it could happen to them. The world didn't believe it was happening to them as it was happening. But it did.


That's why we have enshrined in our Constitution the ability to have firearms. It's to allow the citizens to protect themselves against tyranny. The Founders knew very well what they were doing when they wrote it and adopted it. You can find out what they said if you care to look.

Highcaliber
January 25, 2013, 07:50 PM
I don't think a nuclear suitcase bomb is a poor argument, but if you'd like, how about a rocket launcher?

Timmy,

Second Amendment supporters don't think it's OK to have suitcase bombs and rocket launchers.

Generally speaking, a weapon meant to destroy individuals should be available to and under the control of individuals. A weapon that could be used to destroy a Nation should be controlled by Nations not an individual.

The First Amendment should not limit certain books to only 10 pages under the guise that what you say on the next few pages could be deemed harmful or dangerous.

The Freedom of Religion for example should not be limited to just a short-list of "approved" or abreviated forms of religions as you see fit.

Your anolgies are flawed, but thanks for sharing.

KTXdm9
January 25, 2013, 07:51 PM
If you don't think small arms can resist a large army, I'd invite you to revisit your understanding of the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan (against the US and Russia), Vietnam, and the Revolutionary War. History is not on your side.

Also, LEO's are far from a unified block regarding gun control. Did you know many are saying they won't enforce further infringements on the 2nd Amendment?

CmdrSlander
January 25, 2013, 07:51 PM
Frankly, I'm not sure the restriction should be 10. Anything less than 10 seems unreasonable to me. But 30 seems too high.
Thirty is box standard for most semi-automatic rifles. It was settled on because it was the perfect balance of weight and firepower and because anything less tends to cause misfeeds with some cartridges (the gun doesn't load a new round properly). I counsel you to remember that cops, who use 30 round magazines all the time, are in the business of lawful self defense, as are soldiers who carry 30 rounders in their rifles as they guard base gates. If you want to talk about restricting magazines in excess of thirty rounds, which are somewhat bizarre, then we can maybe find common ground, maybe.

ApacheCoTodd
January 25, 2013, 07:52 PM
As I wrote earlier, I think that everyone of the Bill of Rights has reasonable limitations to them. Most of the questions you raise are examples of unreasonable limitations. I don't think that is analogous to the gun control measures currently being proposed, but one way or another, the courts will decide.
There's an earth shaking flaw right there!

100% of "limitations" of the Bill of Rights is in fact upon the government.

Not one single issue addressed in the Bill of Rights addresses limitations upon The People.

Stop feeding this guy ammunition for "talking points".

mljdeckard
January 25, 2013, 07:54 PM
But, upon what do you base that number? Is it anything other than arbitrary?

If a gun is for defensive use, then it must be free of arbitrary guidelines like this. It is foolish to assume that you know how, where, when, and whom you will be fighting. If you knew things, you should just AVOID THE FIGHT. You don't know how many people you will be engaging, how many times you will miss because you are shaking to death, (even pros do this,) or how long you will have to wait for help.

Let me give you a real-life example. I live in Utah, which is a pretty peaceful state. whenever possible, I go out where I am unlikely to see anyone else, and ride my 4-wheeler. You know who else has this preference? Pot farmers. For several years now, Mexican cartels have been growing increasingly higher record-size fields of weed. Almost every one of these busts has happened in a place where I have hunted or explored at some time or other. The pot isn't the problem. The problem is, they baby-sit their grows, and because of the dollar value, and threats from cops and rival gangs, they are armed. So, here's the question. If I am out in the desert canyons, with an SKS across my handlebars, I stumble on something illegal, I immediately turn around and leave, and see the farmers in the road headed my way, how many bullets do you think I need now? Do you think that my 25-yard sidearm is enough?

rodensouth
January 25, 2013, 07:56 PM
Welcome Timmy, I believe the "Gun Show Loophole" is about ending all sales of firearms from one citizen to another. Then they will force dealers to register sales. Registration is for one purpose only - confiscation at a latter date.

If they have no intention of mass confiscation at some point, there is no need to register. If a felon wants a gun he can usually get it the same place he buys the drugs.

It does matter to me that the legislation would have no positive effect, except to make fearful individuals and government officials comfortable. If they are going to infringe my rights they should have a GOOD reason, and "feelings" aren't a good reason.

The 2A makes it wrong for the Fed to regulate small arms at all IMO, but States are a different matter. That way, if I disagree with the State I'm in I can move to a Free State.:)

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 07:56 PM
We resist because the measure you propose would crimp our lifestyles...

...in truth this is the main reason we oppose them, intellectual justifications, for most, come second, not first, on this point.

It turns our stomachs to imagine waking up one day and with the stroke of a pen being less free than you were the day before. Even if restrictions are "reasonable", they are still onerous to those on the front lines of the issue.

We look at countries like Australia and Britain and see that near total disarmament always starts with "reasonable" restrictions. Imagine you are a persecuted minority (maybe you are) and the government said "we want whats best for you and we will never hurt you but would you kindly where this patch that makes you easily identifiable..."

It doesn't inconvenience you that much... but knowing what you know about where that lead the last time someone asked people to do that, would you do it?
I have to say that, while I respect most of the arguments that have been made here (whether I agree with them or not) this one I find to be somewhat offensive.

I am Jewish; my grandparents and great-grandparents were victims of the Holocaust. I don't appreciate the comparison of what is currently being proposed to what they had to suffer through (or for that matter, what Blacks had to suffer through in the 19th century.) I think that your point can be made without such an onerous analogy.

CmdrSlander
January 25, 2013, 07:56 PM
Is this simply your interpretation, or are you convinced that any limitation on high capacity magazines WILL be overturned by the SC?
I cannot know what the court will do and it is of course possible for the court to put politics above principle and past decisions. However, their last decision on this issue was that anything in common use for lawful purposes cannot be banned because the 2nd Amendment guaranteed access to commonplace arms for all lawful purposes.

The Heller case pertained to a ban on handguns, the city argued that criminals favor handguns for nefarious purposes (as one could argue that mass shooters favor large magazines) but the court responded that though this may be true, the most common defensive arm in the nation is the handgun and thus it would be unreasonable to ban them. To that end, magazines in excess of 10 rounds, thanks to firearms like the Glock and the AR15 (the top handgun and rifle, respectively) which ship with magazines exceeding ten rounds are too common to ban even if they can be horribly abused.

nickn10
January 25, 2013, 07:58 PM
There's an earth shaking flaw right there!

100% of "limitations" of the Bill of Rights is in fact upon the government.

Not one single issue addressed in the Bill of Rights addresses limitations upon The People.

Stop feeding this guy ammunition for "talking points".
And there it is!

CmdrSlander
January 25, 2013, 08:01 PM
I have to say that, while I respect most of the arguments that have been made here (whether I agree with them or not) this one I find to be somewhat offensive.

I am Jewish; my grandparents and great-grandparents were victims of the Holocaust. I don't appreciate the comparison of what is currently being proposed to what they had to suffer through (or for that matter, what Blacks had to suffer through in the 19th century.) I think that your point can be made without such an onerous analogy.
You have my apologies, sincerely. The situations are not comparable, you are correct, all I meant to say is that big restrictions and overreaches start with little restrictions. The endgame of the gun rights movement is to prevent total disarmament, and the endgame of many anti gun people (not yourself, perhaps, but many) is total disarmament. In other countries, total disarmament began with restrictions very similar to what is now being proposed. We have gun owners and former gun owners in now disarmed countries that tell us over and over "do not give an inch" "don't let them get a foothold" "this is how it starts" - with those messages in mind what are we supposed to think?

Warp
January 25, 2013, 08:02 PM
Timmy,

Second Amendment supporters don't think it's OK to have suitcase bombs and rocket launchers.

Generally speaking, a weapon meant to destroy individuals should be available to and under the control of individuals. A weapon that could be used to destroy a Nation should be controlled by Nations not an individual.

The First Amendment should not limit certain books to only 10 pages under the guise that what you say on the next few pages could be deemed harmful or dangerous.

The Freedom of Religion for example should not be limited to just a short-list of "approved" or abreviated forms of religions as you see fit.

Your anolgies are flawed, but thanks for sharing.''
Actually, just for the record, I would and do support rocket launchers being legal and available to law abiding United States Citizens. I'll compromise and allow a background check, though.

A rocket launcher isn't going to destroy a nation.

Now, the nation's government runs amok and the good citizens must fight for Liberty, and there are a lot of them, and they all have rocket launchers, the nation might have a problem.

And that is precisely the intent of the Second Amendment. I would draw the line at an item where an individual or small group could themselves run amok. So no nukes, no MOABs, no 'weapons of mass destruction', etc.

mljdeckard
January 25, 2013, 08:02 PM
I served in Germany, and I've been to Dachau. I don't trivialize genocide. But the fact remains, Israel's current policies are based on not giving your enemies the chance. Check out JPFO.

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 08:02 PM
Oh, but they can.

We fought a guerrilla war in Vietnam and they held their own pretty well, didn't they?

We didn't begin winning in the current Middle Eastern conflicts until we could get the local government and people to want to stop the fighting.


But that's the real rub, isn't it? I mean, if you knew your goverment was going to become tyrannical, you'd want to keep your firearms to have a chance to resist.

When Germany became tyrannical, a lot of groups wished they'd kept their guns.

When Castro decided he'd rather be dictator than president a lot of people wished they'd kept their guns.


We tend to think things will always be what they always were. But history is packed full of nations who were once great, free societies that respected civil liberties but became tyrannical.

The Germans never thought it could happen to them. The world didn't believe it was happening to them as it was happening. But it did.


That's why we have enshrined in our Constitution the ability to have firearms. It's to allow the citizens to protect themselves against tyranny. The Founders knew very well what they were doing when they wrote it and adopted it. You can find out what they said if you care to look.
Just a note on Germany: the Nazis did not disarm it citizens. Yes, there were laws disarming the Jews, but very few of them had arms anyhow. The bulk of German population actually increased private gun ownership- it was encouraged all throughout the Nazi regime. Germany wasn't disarmed until we did it in 1945.

As far as Vietnam goes, we didn't face privately armed civilians there, we faced guerillas being armed by other countries. To the best of my knowledge, there is no example in modern history where privately armed citizens ever held their own against a military force.

Siaharok
January 25, 2013, 08:02 PM
The limitation is not going to have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes, but is designed specifically to have an effect on mass shootings- the idea being that if the shooter is forced to reload, it will be easier to take him down while reloading, thus lives will be saved. Obviously the example most often given is Jared Loughner. In terms of "taking him down while he's reloading," are you interested in knowing whether or not this tactic is feasible, or just a silly fantasy? Wouldn't it make sense to ask the experts? Well, the experts agree that it's fantasy. And by the way, the VA Tech shooter used 10-round magazines and reloaded dozens of times. Why didn't anyone tackle him?

The article from Larry Correi (linked above) handles this idea. Basically, the attacker (the shooter) chooses the terms of engagement. The defenders must RESPOND to the attack. Any time someone is choosing the engagement, they have a slight advantage. The responder is at a disadvantage.

So if someone breaks into my home, they are choosing the engagement, and they have an advantage. I must respond, and I am at a disadvantage. Since I'm already disadvantaged, I would rather NOT be disadvantaged further by having only 10 rounds. The attackers certainly aren't going to be limited by 10-round; why should I be limited just in the hope that somewhere, some day, someone is going to be able to tackle a mass shooter between reloads?

My fear of guns is a personal phobia, but I don't want it to affect my judgment on these issues. Some of you apparently have a fear of government that I might consider irrational. Hopefully we can rely on rationality in terms of discussing all of these issues.Do you really think that you'll be able to stop your fear of guns from affecting your judgment?

Timmy, do you know what was responsible for more murders in the 20th Century than anything else? Government. I'm not talking about war. I'm talking about genocide. Turkey. Russia. Cambodia. Germany. We're talking about 50+ million people murdered by their governments. To be afraid of government is just plain good sense.

I highly recommend that you read this book:

How Do You Kill 11 Million People?: Why the Truth Matters More Than You
by Andy Andrews

BullfrogKen
January 25, 2013, 08:04 PM
I am Jewish; my grandparents and great-grandparents were victims of the Holocaust.

Those who have fled from nations where the government suppressed and slaughtered their people are the last ones to want to empower the one they fled for shelter to be able to do it again.


I've met people who came here from countries that suppressed them, and they're the most . . . . "paranoid" was the word you used . . . . I'll use suspicious, of a government that doesn't think they ought to be well-armed. They remember too vividly what happened back in their homeland, and vow to never let it happen again.

Siaharok
January 25, 2013, 08:05 PM
Just a note on Germany: the Nazis did not disarm it citizens. Yes, there were laws disarming the Jews, but very few of them had arms anyhow. The bulk of German population actually increased private gun ownership- it was encouraged all throughout the Nazi regime. Germany wasn't disarmed until we did it in 1945. No, the earlier Weimar goverment did all the disarming. And get this -- the Weimar gov did it specifically to disarm the Nazis! So by the time the Nazis got into power, they were able to use the existing gun laws against the Weimar.

The modern parallels are amazing. Today, antis are always saying that it's ridiculous to compare Obama to Hitler. And I agree with that point. But what they're not seeing is that gun laws often LAST. Antis are not thinking ahead to the next administration, or the one 20 years down the road.

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 08:06 PM
I served in Germany, and I've been to Dachau. I don't trivialize genocide. But the fact remains, Israel's current policies are based on not giving your enemies the chance. Check out JPFO.
Israel is a well-armed society- BUT- all firearms are registered. Convicted felons are not allowed to own guns, and there are no private sales without background checks. I also believe that certain types of rifles and high capacity gun magazines are also restricted (not sure about this last). None of this has prevented a high level of private gun ownership. I think Israel contradicts some of your "slippery slope" fears.

ljnowell
January 25, 2013, 08:07 PM
timmy4,

Quick question. You admit you are afraid of guns. You have nothing to do with them. What makes you feel you are qualified to decide how many rounds people need in thier magazine?

It seems this is the main problem we have with anti-gun people. They are hell bent on legislating away my rights by banning things they dont even understand. Its fine with you because you dont like them. What about when they come for the 1st amendment? Are you going to be as OK with that?

CmdrSlander
January 25, 2013, 08:08 PM
Just a note on Germany: the Nazis did not disarm it citizens. Yes, there were laws disarming the Jews, but very few of them had arms anyhow. The bulk of German population actually increased private gun ownership- it was encouraged all throughout the Nazi regime. Germany wasn't disarmed until we did it in 1945.

As far as Vietnam goes, we didn't face privately armed civilians there, we faced guerillas being armed by other countries. To the best of my knowledge, there is no example in modern history where privately armed citizens ever held their own against a military force.
Germany did not disarm its citizens because by the time its gun laws were relaxed the general population of the country was loyal to Hitler - if you weren't you were dead or in prison. So they allowed a populace they knew to be loyal to have arms to serve their regime. They did not increase gun ownership just because it seemed like the evil thing to do and certainly not because they liked personal freedom and self determination. This is similar to the "Hitler had a dog" logical fallacy, wherein one says: "You like dogs, Hitler had a dog, Hitler was evil, so you must be evil." the version for this argument would be "Hitler supported an armed populace therefore an armed populace is bad."

dmckean44
January 25, 2013, 08:08 PM
Frankly, I'm not sure the restriction should be 10. Anything less than 10 seems unreasonable to me. But 30 seems too high.

So you come here saying you own zero guns and know little about them. How would you know if 10 or 30 or 1000 is too much or not??

Most of us shoot several hundred rounds every time we take a trip to the range.

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 08:09 PM
Everyone, I have enjoyed this immensly, but I have to run- for now. I will be back. Want to assure you that I am not a troll- I enjoy good discussion and debate. I also am not here to spread talking points- I've never seen the point of that. I really appreciate all of the responses so far.

BullfrogKen
January 25, 2013, 08:09 PM
To the best of my knowledge, there is no example in modern history where privately armed citizens ever held their own against a military force.

Never heard of Nothern Ireland, have you?

Highcaliber
January 25, 2013, 08:10 PM
Originally Posted by timmy4 But you raise the issue of a tyrannical government. I don't believe that we are close to that, or that these restrictions would bring us closer to that, and most important of all, I don't believe that private firearms would ever protect you against a tyrannical government. Perhaps in 1776, but in 2013, against modern technology? Not a chance. It's really a moot argument, IMO.

A free person should never mortgage their self defense or security to the government, no matter how benevolent you think the government might be.

wooly bugger
January 25, 2013, 08:11 PM
Is this simply your interpretation, or are you convinced that any limitation on high capacity magazines WILL be overturned by the SC?
Timmy4. Thank you for joining us with your level-headed and important questions. I wish all of my non-gun friends were as curious and openminded.

CmdrSlandr. Thank you! I wanted to say the same thing and read through 49 posts before I saw it.

Of course all rights have limits; and for the first time, Heller gave us reasonable guidance as to where to draw the line on the 2nd. "In common use at the time." Given that the AR-15 platform is the fastest growing segment, I don't see how supporters of the Feinstein bill can say that these aren't "in common use."

Heller doesn't address magazine capacity, but I think it's reasonable to extrapolate the spirit of the ruling to magazines, because they are an important determinant of the firearm's functionality. I frankly don't know where to draw the Constitutional line. But I would say at a minimum, it would have to allow magazines that ship from the factory with commonly used guns.

Since very few magazine fed firearms ship with less that 10, and most don't even have magazines readily available with lower capacity, I don't know how Cuomo can defend his 7 round limit. It essentially bans a huge swath of very popular guns until such time (if any) as a manufacturer chooses to introduce new products specifically to address his dictat.

I'm not aware of any gun that come standard with >30, so I think over 30 may withstand constitutional scrutiny.

skeeziks
January 25, 2013, 08:12 PM
Timmy.... You say you fear guns but you seem to have no fear of your govt. You say our responses sound "paranoid."

In my opinion, your fear is misplaced in that you have it backwards.

jamesbeat
January 25, 2013, 08:13 PM
The reason is that the Second Amendment is important because it protects the rights outlined in the other amendments.

We're not loonies who cling to the Second Amendment dogmatically, we keep stressing it because it is important.

Many (Most? All?) of us keep guns to protect ourselves and our loved ones, because we are just as afraid of becoming a victim of crime as you are. We simply believe that the police cannot always be there fast enough.

Guns aren't just used by criminals, thousands of rapes, murders and robberies are prevented each year by responsible people with firearms.

It's unsavory to have to think about this stuff at all, and nobody could blame you for being repulsed by violence.
Sometimes however, violence is necessary to protect good people, that's why the police have guns.

I'm from Britain, and I can tell you from first hand experience that most of the information you have about guns is deliberately false and misleading.
Banning guns does not prevent bad people doing horrible things.
Most guns are illegal in Britain, or very difficult to legally own, but Britain has about four times as much violent crime as we do here in the States.

'Hot' burglaries, which are burglaries that take place when the homeowner is present, are 60% in Britain, but only 13% here, because criminals are aware that a lot of American homes have guns.
You already benefit from gun ownership, because these criminals don't know which homes have guns.

I'm sure that you will hear from people a lot more eloquent than me, but one thought I'd like you to take away from this is that you have only heard one side of the argument, because the mainstream media knows that an anti-gun stance sells.

You have taken the first step in hearing the other side of the argument by posting in this forum. Please continue to do your research, and if at the end of it you are still against guns, then at least you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you made an informed decision.

Incidentally, Penn & Teller did a series called 'Bull****!' and one of the episodes was about gun control. I strongly recommend that you include that episode in your research.

CmdrSlander
January 25, 2013, 08:13 PM
So you come here saying you own zero guns and know little about them. How would you know if 10 or 30 or 1000 is too much or not??

Most of us shoot several hundred rounds every time we take a trip to the range.
Additionally, you have to realize that ten rounds of 5.56 (the AR15's cartridge) is very different from 10 rounds of 12 Gauge buckshot or ten rounds of .308 Winchester. The 5.56 is not a reliable one shot stopper/killer. It takes about 2 to 3 shots to effectively bring someone down with a 5.56 so in the AR15 a 30 round magazine really only permits the killing of 10 people assuming every shot hits. With a pump shotgun that holds five shells (something you would never try to ban) you could kill a room full of people without reloading because every shell holds around 15 pellets the size of common pistol bullets. Really, a fully loaded Glock has as much firepower as a single 12 gauge shell. This is why capacity limits are arbitrary and annoy us so much.

Utryme
January 25, 2013, 08:13 PM
I took these from a website and clicked off the tab too soon so I can't give the site proper credit.


Check out these quotes. These guys had such courage. I think they would be sickened and very disappointed with how we have let things go in our country. The mid-term elections can't get here soon enough. We've got work to do ladies and gentlemen. Just like every deer hunter should hunt coyotes, every gun owner should be an activist. The path some want to go down is a very slippery slope and the only way to beat it is on election day.





"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"-- Thomas Jefferson


"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"-- George Washington


"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."-- Alexander Hamilton


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-- Benjamin Franklin


"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."-- Thomas Jefferson


"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."-- Abraham Lincoln


"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."-- George Washington


"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms." -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788


"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere." -- Thomas Jefferson


"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."-- Thomas Jefferson

j.kramer
January 25, 2013, 08:14 PM
I have to say that, while I respect most of the arguments that have been made here (whether I agree with them or not) this one I find to be somewhat offensive.

I am Jewish; my grandparents and great-grandparents were victims of the Holocaust. I don't appreciate the comparison of what is currently being proposed to what they had to suffer through (or for that matter, what Blacks had to suffer through in the 19th century.) I think that your point can be made without such an onerous analogy.

what does halacha say about gun control ?
Halacha has a very clear message…. Basically, your life is a gift from God and if someone tries to take it away from you, you have an obligation to try to prevent that

how on earth can you be in favor of gun control ?

USAF_Vet
January 25, 2013, 08:14 PM
I for one think the 2nd Amendment allows for nuclear arms, and felons, crazy people etc to possess them. If you don't like it, you don't get a judge to make it so, you make another Amendment...there's already a process for that....I'm pretty sure you could get it to pass.
Arms =/= Ordnance.

If you think felons and the mentally ill should possess arms, you then are in disagreement with the Founders and Framers, who, in the federalist papers, commented about restricting arms for those not of sound mind and of poor moral character.



Timmy, one of the reasons gun-owners and supporters of the second amendment resist any for of gun control is the fact that over and over, they have been proven to be ineffective.
Case in point: Last summer, there was a high media profile shooting outside the Empire State Building in New York City. The weapon used was a .45 semi automatic clone of the popular 1911. It was possessed illegally by the shooter. Much more recently, New York passed a gun control law that would limit magazine capacity to 7 rounds. Would this law have prevented this murder had it been passed a year ago, months prior to this high profile murder?

The anti-gun politicians want a gun ban to keep guns out of schools, to protect our children. In 1999, in the middle of the first Assault Weapons Ban, the town of Littleton, Colorado was shocked when two students went on a rampage in Columbine High School. Aside from the modifications to the double barrel shotgun, the guns used were perfectly legal to own. The AWB did nothing to prevent two mentally ill students from murdering several of their classmates.

Gun Free Zones have proved to be target areas for mass shootings.

I point this out because if the Right of the People to keep and bear arms had NOT been infringed, it's possible that these atrocities would never have happened. We don't know what would have happened if these were not gun free zones, but we know what happened because they were.

We have the right to keep and bear arms. We have the right to free speech, we have the right to practice the religion of our choice. We have the right to be protected from illegal search and seizure and the right to due process of law. The government cannot force you to house and quarter soldiers in the military. There are many more rights protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These are the rights of the people. All people, people like you and me. The Second Amendment is what gives the people the ability to preserve those rights, as a last recourse. It is the teeth that back us up when the bark fails. Without teeth, a dog is pretty useless and easily bypassed. The same thing goes with our rights. Without the ability to protect our rights, all the yelling and shouting in the world is fruitless if it can be easily ignored, just like the toothless yapping dog. The Second Amendment protects the rest of our rights. That is why it's important.

mljdeckard
January 25, 2013, 08:14 PM
But there are plenty of examples of people getting murdered by their own governments. More than died in all major wars since 1900. Not ancient history either. Kosovo, Rwanda, all over Africa.

"1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!" -Adolph Hitler

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."

-Adolf Hitler
Edict of March 18, 1938, H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944 (London: Widenfeld and Nicolson, 1953, p. 425-426) 1938(9?)-03-18

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

-Heinrich Himmler

timmy4
January 25, 2013, 08:14 PM
timmy4,

Quick question. You admit you are afraid of guns. You have nothing to do with them. What makes you feel you are qualified to decide how many rounds people need in thier magazine?

It seems this is the main problem we have with anti-gun people. They are hell bent on legislating away my rights by banning things they dont even understand. Its fine with you because you dont like them. What about when they come for the 1st amendment? Are you going to be as OK with that?
Just have time to answer this one question. My answer is I am not qualified. My views on high capacity magazines were formed by reading some law enforcement opinions on this, starting with the police chief of Baltimore. He made what I believe to be convincing arguments.

I don't want to remove any of your rights or privileges unless I am pretty sure they are harmful to society. Currently I am against banning any "assault rifles" for a very simple reason: I can't see any difference between them and other semi-automatic guns, other than how they look. How something looks is not a good enough reason to ban anything, IMO. So I fall on "your side" when it comes to that question. But I do think that limiting high capacity magazines and removing the private sales loophole makes sense.

Deaf Smith
January 25, 2013, 08:20 PM
Hello, I am new to this forum. I probably disagree with most of you here on several issues. I own no guns, and frankly they scare me. I believe in gun control. I believe in what President Obama is trying to do on this issue. I joined this forum hoping for some respectful debate and to learn the thoughts of those who don't agree with me on these subjects.

Let me start with a basic question: why do you guys keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment? I have studied most of the major gun proposals: the three being most talked about are a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, a limitation on high capacity gun magazines, and a closure of the loophole for private sales (in which background checks are currently not necessary.) It seems to me that none of these ideas would violate the 2nd Amendment. So why keep bringing it up?
Why?

”Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.”
~Benjamin Franklin

”This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.”
~Abraham Lincoln


”That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State…”
~George Mason

”Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.”
~John Adams

”The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
~Thomas Jefferson

”The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…”
~James Madison

”The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
~Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764)

"In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right was protected by the 2nd Amendment. --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

And keep in mind what the OTHER countries said about arms. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Ida Amin, Mugbee, etc... and as a infamous one of their number said...

”Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
~Heinrich Himmler

And we know how THAT turned out. As did the USSR, CHINA, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Cuba, etc...

The 2nd Amendment is NOT about duck hunting.

The 2nd Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms, not the Militia's, not the STATE'S, not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S, but the PEOPLE's right as in WE THE PEOPLE.

The first part of the Amendment was to give a REASON for the second part. That is why the PEOPLE should have ARMS. The same arms the militias have (and thus the standing army of today.)

And that is why we bring up the 2nd Amendment so much. It is that important.

skeeziks
January 25, 2013, 08:20 PM
"I don't want to remove any of your rights or privileges unless I am pretty sure they are harmful to society."

You can't "remove" our rights (no man can) because they are God Given. You can only Infringe upon them.

CmdrSlander
January 25, 2013, 08:21 PM
Additionally, you have to realize that ten rounds of 5.56 (the AR15's cartridge) is very different from 10 rounds of 12 Gauge buckshot or ten rounds of .308 Winchester. The 5.56 is not a reliable one shot stopper/killer. It takes about 2 to 3 shots to effectively bring someone down with a 5.56 so in the AR15 a 30 round magazine really only permits the killing of 10 people assuming every shot hits. With a pump shotgun that holds five shells (something you would never try to ban) you could kill a room full of people without reloading because every shell holds around 15 pellets the size of common pistol bullets. Really, a fully loaded Glock has as much firepower as a single 12 gauge shell. This is why capacity limits are arbitrary and annoy us so much.
Here is a more mathematically persuasive comparison:

AR15 with a 30 round magazine, fully loaded with common 55 Grain bullets:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/AR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg

Total bullet weight in the magazine (the amount lethal lead that can be dispatched without reloading): 1650 grains

Remington 870 Express, a hunting shotgun that would be exempt from all capacity bans due to its five round tube.

http://cdn.firearmstalk.com/forums/attachments/f26/80015d1358356686-new-remington-870-express-image-2255120743.jpgTotal bullet weight in the magazine (the amount lethal lead that can be dispatched without reloading):
3500 grains!

That's right! Grain for Grain, a turkey gun with a five round magazine tube that is legal everywhere has more killing power than the dreaded AR15!

KTXdm9
January 25, 2013, 08:22 PM
Just a note on Germany: the Nazis did not disarm it citizens. Yes, there were laws disarming the Jews, but very few of them had arms anyhow. The bulk of German population actually increased private gun ownership- it was encouraged all throughout the Nazi regime. Germany wasn't disarmed until we did it in 1945.

As far as Vietnam goes, we didn't face privately armed civilians there, we faced guerillas being armed by other countries. To the best of my knowledge, there is no example in modern history where privately armed citizens ever held their own against a military force.
With all due respect, you are dodging the question. What did those citizens do with those weapons in Vietnam? How did they fare against a much more powerful occupying force? The media here had a cow when our soldiers were engaging in urban warfare in Iraq. How do you think that would go over if it was happening here, against our own citizens?

LevelHead
January 25, 2013, 08:24 PM
Timmy, if you are local to me, I invite you to come shooting with me. I'll teach you safety, show you how the guns work, and not force you to do anything you don't want to do. I belong to a private club where we can have some privacy, though we can also go on days where it's more crowded if you'd prefer.

I call myself LevelHead for a reason. If you'd like to learn more about guns from someone who knows a lot, and will treat you with respect, send me a PM and we'll set it up. I'd be willing to bet that if you're not close to me, then there would be someone else who would similarly offer their time.

In my experience, debating from a standpoint of fear causes false assumptions to take hold as fact. I respect your willingness to have an open debate, but I think that if you found the right person to spend an afternoon shooting with, you might discover that you would have some fun and learn something while you're at it. Let me know.

BullfrogKen
January 25, 2013, 08:24 PM
I don't want to remove any of your rights or privileges unless I am pretty sure they are harmful to society

Alcohol is harmful to society. The abuses of alcohol kill far more people than guns do.

Why don't we ban alcohol?

Or if not, register those who want to buy it and conduct background checks on them to see if they have a history of alcohol-related problems?

Or limit the number of bottles of alcohol you can buy. I've seen people go into a liquor store and buy a shopping cart full of booze. No one can drink a couple dozen bottles of booze! You just don't need that much. We should advocate for a system that limits the amount of booze someone can buy at one time.


See where that argument goes?

jamesbeat
January 25, 2013, 08:27 PM
I'd also like to point out an error in all of these magazine capacity arguments.

The entire thing is invalid.
If you believe that lower magazine capacities will stop children being killed, then of course you would want lower capacities mandated in law.

The problem is that it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to a mass murderer, despite what the politicians are telling you.

If I thought that a 10 or even 7 round limit would save the lives of children, then I'd be all for it, but I don't let misinformed politicians do my thinking for me, ao I am fully aware that the whole argument is based on a false premise.

wooly bugger
January 25, 2013, 08:28 PM
To address the issue that in 2013, even a very well-armed citizenry can't beat the US military....

I don't know that it's necessary to "beat" them. I think an armed citizenry is the difference between people being "disappeared" in the night and a noisy, public conflict. I have enough faith in our military that there would be significant resistance to shooting on their own people, and that reluctance would probably be magnified by the good chance that following illegal orders will result in a lead storm from surrounding rooftops. And with a 40% gun ownership rate, seeing an actual gunfight outside is going to embolden a gun owner to join in and take action, rather than wonder what his neighbors are up to and hope that the next disappearance isn't his.

Regardless of whether guerilla resistance has been abetted by foreign aid or whether they "won," it cannot be denied that guerillas, with weapons similar to our (OK, we don't have RPGs) have forced major military powers (US, USSR) to seriously rethink their political and territorial ambitions.

mljdeckard
January 25, 2013, 08:32 PM
My favorite example of resistance comes from Denmark in WWII. When the Germans ordered the Jews to wear arm bands, the king put one on. So did most of the rest of the population. They would walk down the street with holes in their pockets and drop bent nails. They would put IEDs on the hulls of anchored ships. They waited for the Germans to go into their air raid shelters, and then dumped gasoline in the air vents and torched them. When they started placing guards to prevent this, they started sniping the guards and THEN torching them. The command had to call back to Berlin and tell them that they needed more tires, men, and equipment. Berlin started to question whether or not Denmark was worth the trouble, since they really just wanted Norway anyway. Had the war not ended, they likely would have abandoned Denmark.

It's not always about winning. Al-queda isn't winning. The Viet Cong weren't winning. But it is about making victory too expensive. The idea of an armed population doesn't have to be for an organized revolution. It's strongest benefit is in forcing the powers that be to remember that whatever it is they want to try, it just isn't worth it to try in the first place. THAT is why the possibility of armed revolution seems so remote.

wooly bugger
January 25, 2013, 08:35 PM
Why?

”Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.”
~Benjamin Franklin

”This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.”
~Abraham Lincoln


”That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State…”
~George Mason

”Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.”
~John Adams

”The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
~Thomas Jefferson

”The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…”
~James Madison

”The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
~Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764)

"In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right was protected by the 2nd Amendment. --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

And keep in mind what the OTHER countries said about arms. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Ida Amin, Mugbee, etc... and as a infamous one of their number said...

”Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
~Heinrich Himmler

And we know how THAT turned out. As did the USSR, CHINA, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Cuba, etc...

The 2nd Amendment is NOT about duck hunting.

The 2nd Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms, not the Militia's, not the STATE'S, not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S, but the PEOPLE's right as in WE THE PEOPLE.

The first part of the Amendment was to give a REASON for the second part. That is why the PEOPLE should have ARMS. The same arms the militias have (and thus the standing army of today.)

And that is why we bring up the 2nd Amendment so much. It is that important.
DeafSmith,
Please be sure to authenticate quotes before posting them. There are a lot of invented ones circulating, and repeating them only discredits us.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

Frank Ettin
January 25, 2013, 08:41 PM
...It seems to me that none of these ideas would violate the 2nd Amendment...How do you know? That's really a question for the courts and one that will need to be worked out over time.

In the course of deciding Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (United States Supreme Court, 2008)) and McDonald (McDonald v. City of Chicago (Supreme Court, 2010, No. 08-1521)), the rulings made by the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Law, as necessary in making its decisions in those cases, are now binding precedent on all other courts. Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge other restrictions on the RKBA, and the rulings on matters of law necessarily made by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald will need to be followed by other courts in those cases.

There is judicial authority for the proposition that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation by government. Any such regulation must pass some level of scrutiny. The lowest level of scrutiny sometimes applied to such regulation, "rational basis", appears to now have been taken off the table, based on some language in McDonald. And since the Court in McDonald has explicitly characterized the right described by the Second Amendment as fundamental, we have some reason to hope that the highest level of scrutiny, "strict scrutiny" will apply. Strict scrutiny has thus far been the standard generally applied to regulation of a fundamental right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

There are three prongs to the strict scrutiny test, as follows:

[1] The regulation must be justified by a compelling governmental interest; and

[2] The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest; and

[3] The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest (i. e., there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive).

The level of scrutiny between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" is "intermediate scrutiny." To satisfy the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way substantially related to that interest.

Whichever level of scrutiny may apply, the government, state or federal, seeking to have the regulation sustained will have the burden of convincing a court (and in some cases, ultimately the Supreme Court) that the regulation is acceptable under the applicable level of scrutiny. And since it is the burden of he who wants to regulation to establish that the regulation is acceptable under the Second Amendment, there is no reason for us ...to agree that there are SOME limitations,...Government will need to make its case in court, over our opposition in court.

EBK
January 25, 2013, 08:43 PM
The milita act of 1903 spells it out very clearly:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the militia shall consist of every able‐bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District
of Columbia, and every able‐bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who
is more than eighteen and less than forty‐five years of age, and into two classes‐the organized militia, to be known
as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given
them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia."

In short WE THE PEOPLE are the reserve militia and thus are REQUIRED to have Military serviceable firearms in case we are called on to defend our country from enimies foregin and domestic.

No to mention the BOR did not give us the right to defend ourselves being born did. The 2nd Amendment was put there to remind the government how this nation was born and why it will always remain *free



*VOID where prohibited (NY/CA) some restricion will apply.

IlikeSA
January 25, 2013, 08:45 PM
I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine on the second amendment and it's importance. He stated some of the same arguments as you: particularly concerning the "there is no oppressive government." While I agree, to a certain extent, with that statement, what can guarantee me that there will not be one in 4 years? How about 10 years? 20 years?

I am sure that a German who was born in 1900 would have thought the same thing. Within 20 years, his government dissolved from a parliamentary monarchy to a democracy, and then thirteen years later and a lot of rioting and street fighting to a dictatorship. All of this happened in one lifetime. As a scholar of history, we would do well not to let down our guard against tyranny, as sometimes, but not always, it happens over a long period of time. Sometimes, it happens within a few months.

Already we are seeing politicians break their pledge (no new taxes, better healthcare, etc). The only things preventing tyranny from truly happening is moral checks and a fear of the vote. We are fortunate not to have to use arms to keep our government straight, but it has happened before, even within the last 2 generations. (http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm)

Tommygunn
January 25, 2013, 08:46 PM
Israel is a well-armed society- BUT- all firearms are registered. Convicted felons are not allowed to own guns, and there are no private sales without background checks. I also believe that certain types of rifles and high capacity gun magazines are also restricted (not sure about this last). None of this has prevented a high level of private gun ownership. I think Israel contradicts some of your "slippery slope" fears.


Israel is a fairly new country.
The United States has seen
1.) The National Firearams Act of 1933 (controled machineguns & other devices).
2.) The Gun Control Act of 1938
3.) The Gun Control Act of 1968 (This was arguably patterned after a 1938 Nazi gun law applying a "sporting purpose" to guns).
4.) The Brady Act. This inmvolved first a waiting period which evolved into the NICS (National Instant Check System) so when one buys a gun from a FFL the owner gets cleared.
5.) The 1994-2004 Assault weapon ban, which banned a gun that possessed 2 or more of certain cosmetic features and imposed a 10 round limit on newly manufactured magazines.
In addition there are said to be around 20,000 gun control laws on a local, state and federal level.
Politicians have gone after "saturday night specials" before. These are inexpensive weapons popularly thought to be very useful by criminals -- but also useful for people who can't afford more expensive guns.
In New York City politicians made an effort to register certain semiauto long guns. A typical "pro vs. anti" argument broke out; the antis claiming that registration only leads to confiscation, while the government promised there would be no confiscation. The law passed. Flash forward three decades to Mayor Dinkins' administration. Some of those guns were banned and the registration list was in fact used to assure compliance.
A very similar mattern happened in California regarding the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon law.
So unfortunatly the "slippery slope" argument is very valid.

orionengnr
January 25, 2013, 08:46 PM
My views on high capacity magazines were formed by reading some law enforcement opinions on this, starting with the police chief of Baltimore.
Police chiefs do not go out on the street and risk their lives. They are more concerned with their careers. They are out of touch.

Police chiefs are generally appointed...by politicians.
Rank and file officers, in general, have quite a different view than do political appointees.

I am sure you are familiar with Mayor Bloomberg and his happy band of mayors...

Arp32
January 25, 2013, 08:47 PM
To address the issue that in 2013, even a very well-armed citizenry can't beat the US military....

I'll jump in here...

I have the greatest respect for our armed forces. These men and women represent the very best of us. Plenty of vets in my family, including almost 30 years of service from my own dad. But with all due respect, the greatest military power on the planet hasn't been able to "control" two countries in southwest Asia where most of the folks fighting us have nothing more than semi-automatic rifles and crude homemade bombs.

You think a conventional army would have better odds in this country? There are easily ten times the number of privately owned firearms in the US than there are human beings in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Having read the newspaper a few times in the last ten years, I'd say a motivated population with small arms stands a pretty good chance against a conventional army, depending on what the goal of that army is.

Warp
January 25, 2013, 08:48 PM
Here is a more mathematically persuasive comparison:

AR15 with a 30 round magazine, fully loaded with common 55 Grain bullets:


[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/AR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg[IMG]

Total bullet weight in the magazine (the amount lethal lead that can be dispatched without reloading): 1650 grains

Remington 870 Express, a hunting shotgun that would be exempt from all capacity bans due to its five round tube.

[IMG]http://cdn.firearmstalk.com/forums/attachments/f26/80015d1358356686-new-remington-870-express-image-2255120743.jpg[IMG]Total bullet weight in the magazine (the amount lethal lead that can be dispatched without reloading):
3500 grains!

That's right! Grain for Grain, a turkey gun with a five round magazine tube that is legal everywhere has more killing power than the dreaded AR15!

I disagree, and I think you are doing us a disservice by misrepresenting facts. This is every bit as dishonest as the gun grabbers.

An AR15 with 30-31 rounds gives the wielder the capability to injure or kill far more people than a shotgun with 5-6 shells.

If you want to compare the "killing power" of those two, given the context of the discussion and the tragic events that precipitated it, the AR15 has a lot more "killing power". And that's fine. In fact, that is PRECISELY why the AR15 is protected by the Second Amendment. Don't dance around the bush.

skeeziks
January 25, 2013, 08:49 PM
Texting while driving is harmful to society. Should we ban cell phones?

I don't think you know what "Protected Under the Bill of Rights" means.

EBK
January 25, 2013, 08:50 PM
I don't believe that private firearms would ever protect you against a tyrannical government. Perhaps in 1776, but in 2013, against modern technology? Not a chance. It's really a moot argument, IMO.

Putting aside our differing opinions on what constitutes tyrrany, If you believe our arms could not stand against tyrrany how do you explain whats goin on in Syria or how The Iraqi and Afgahni people have held of our mighty millitary for 12 years?

RockyMtnTactical
January 25, 2013, 08:50 PM
Every person should be registered so we can better regulate free speech. Obviously it is not an absolute right and we never know when someone will go off and scream "fire" in a crowded movie theater.

I also propose we limit the amount of words a person can say in a sentence (10 seems like plenty) as well as "speech free zones". Who needs to say more than 10 words in a sentence anyway?

SSN Vet
January 25, 2013, 08:53 PM
But you raise the issue of a tyrannical government. I don't believe that we are close to that,

Well.... if you compared the level of government intursion into the lives of the citizenry, and the rate of taxation, in both 1776 and in 2013, you might come to a different conclusion.

I for one, would like to direct the proceeds of my labor towards my family and the charitable enterprises I see fit to support, and not be coerced into supporting every form of gov't subsidy and wellfare imagineable.

Our founding fathers new something about being free and self sufficient... and they charished that freedom and provided some pretty radical restrictions on the state to ensure it lasted.

Gaiudo
January 25, 2013, 08:54 PM
The argument "we wouldn't be able to resist a tyrannical govt. because they have Apache helicopters, tanks, drones" etc. limits tyranny only to the federal, national level. Some of the greatest atrocities in this country have been perpetrated by state or local government; just look at the South during Reconstruction. The anti-gun laws that came into play in the South were tyrannical, and focused specifically on removing firearms from blacks.

The presence of firearms gives communities the ability to extend a consent to govern, or to withdraw that consent. Most govt. atrocities don't take place by the army or by national consent, but by corrupt individuals within positions of power or authority. E.g., New Orleans after Katrina.

I am far more concerned that local communities are able to maintain a consent of the governed than in fighting a civil war against the federal government.

SSN Vet
January 25, 2013, 08:56 PM
Tim, with respect I would suggest that you choose to live in fear of what you do not understand.

Perhaps you might benefit from getting out of your comfort zone. I suspect there are several on the forum who live in your area and would be happy to assist you. Or try your local range that offers NRA certified instruction.

And if you're also afraid of those three letters, you might just wonder who teaches the people who teach your local police how to deploy the tools needed to defend your community.

Warp
January 25, 2013, 08:56 PM
The argument "we wouldn't be able to resist a tyrannical govt. because they have Apache helicopters, tanks, drones" etc. limits tyranny only to the federal, national level. Some of the greatest atrocities in this country have been perpetrated by state or local government; just look at the South during Reconstruction. The anti-gun laws that came into play in the South were tyrannical, and focused specifically on removing firearms from blacks.

The presence of firearms gives communities the ability to extend a consent to govern, or to withdraw that consent. Most govt. atrocities don't take place by the army or by national consent, but by corrupt individuals within positions of power or authority. E.g., New Orleans after Katrina.

I am far more concerned that local communities are able to maintain a consent of the governed than in fighting a civil war against the federal government.

Well said.

Another example: The battle for Athens

meanmrmustard
January 25, 2013, 08:56 PM
Just have time to answer this one question. My answer is I am not qualified. My views on high capacity magazines were formed by reading some law enforcement opinions on this, starting with the police chief of Baltimore. He made what I believe to be convincing arguments.

I don't want to remove any of your rights or privileges unless I am pretty sure they are harmful to society. Currently I am against banning any "assault rifles" for a very simple reason: I can't see any difference between them and other semi-automatic guns, other than how they look. How something looks is not a good enough reason to ban anything, IMO. So I fall on "your side" when it comes to that question. But I do think that limiting high capacity magazines and removing the private sales loophole makes sense.
"You" won't be taking anything from me. Your King, which sits on his throne in D.C, will try.

Criminals don't follow laws, that's why they're criminals. So, in summation, while I appreciate and thank you for your demeanor and your position, I respectfully disagree that mag capacity restrictions or universal background checks make sense at all.

The only way any of these proposals make "sense" are if the criminals wake up one day and decide to collectively obey these laws.

This is wishful, foolish thinking. Listen to "The Rainbow Connection", and add lib "Gun Law".

4v50 Gary
January 25, 2013, 08:58 PM
Just have time to answer this one question. My answer is I am not qualified. My views on high capacity magazines were formed by reading some law enforcement opinions on this, starting with the police chief of Baltimore. He made what I believe to be convincing arguments.

If you were to ask the average law enforcement officer, you will find they have a vastly different view from the managerial personnel. High ranking officers and chiefs must play politics. If the employer says we don't like guns, how else would the chief respond if he was interested in keeping his job. The same applies for high ranking officers who could be kicked off the promotional ladder or placed on the fast track to retirement.

BTW, might I suggest you start looking into how leading organizations develop their opinions? Basically a foundation gives them grants. The organization gets used to the money as it allows to to expand and thus exercise more power. Then the foundation calls in the favor. Anyone who says no gets cut off from the grant funding. It's the same old follow the dollar. That's why AARP is anti-gun. That's why medical organizations are anti-gun. Follow the dollar. The same applies to our politicians. Those with the money manipulate organizations and the media to influence public opinion.

Can't happen here? Do you think the Boston Massacre was terrible? Well, a jury composed of Americans exonerated the officer and the soldiers. It was self defense. How about the Spanish-American War? Remember The Maine! was William Randolph Hearst's incitement to build an American empire at the expense of Spain.

Ask yourself who benefits most from the infringement of the Second Amendment? Hint: It's not We the People.

But you raise the issue of a tyrannical government. I don't believe that we are close to that....

Suggest you read more history books and do some research. Start with Benjamin Roth's Depression Diary. You can read all about the incidents where the militia, National Guard and the US Army fired on American citizens. Hey, in the latter they also used cavalry, tear gas, tanks and machine guns. More current is the NDAA. Find out about that lovely piece of legislation that was signed on New Year's Eve and then tell us what it is. Find out about the Patriot Act and then tell us what that does. Find out about the Americans killed extra-judicially and let us know if you approve of these measures. While you're at in, find out where QE-1, QE-2, QE-3 Ad Infinitum and QE-4 is taking this nation and this world. Then please share your research with us. I'm curious.

ljnowell
January 25, 2013, 08:58 PM
I don't want to remove any of your rights or privileges unless I am pretty sure they are harmful to society.

Thats mighty polite of you, but unfortunately my rights are niether for sale or barter, thank you very much.

I guess thats the difference between you and many of us here also. You feel as though you can take our rights that you are not comfortable with. I would never assume I could do that to you. You should think about that some and remember my question to you about the 1st amendment. Who do you want standing on your side when that question comes? The 2nd protects all the rest.

skeeziks
January 25, 2013, 09:00 PM
"You should spend some time researching the basis for why we oppose the restrictive aspects of the proposed legislation before diving in too deep."

The above quote is from "hso" our moderator. I feel that maybe it's best to take his advice. And try to keep this in mind as you go along: "Seperation of Powers."

goon
January 25, 2013, 09:00 PM
I've never really thought about it too much. I believe in free speech, in general, but there are reasonable limitations (Obviously, the famous one of shouting "fire" in a theater is the best example of a limitation.) All of the Bill of Rights have limitations.

This is true. You cannot shout "fire" in a threater and then claim First Amendment protection.
You also cannot fire a rifle in a theater and claim Second Amendment protection.

But you can still do those things. There are legal consequences after the fact, but innocent people will be hurt either way.


In either case, I appreciate your willingness to seek out some people who don't share your opinion and have an actual discussion with them, rather that just deciding all gun owners are uneducated racist morons and succumbing to hysteria.

General Geoff
January 25, 2013, 09:02 PM
At the moment our guest seems to be pro-status quo on everything except for standard capacity magazines, and the back ground check issue. I know there was a study done on the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting that surmised that there would have been no reduction in fatalities had the shooter used 10 round magazines. Anyone got a link to that?


As for the universal background checks, statistically speaking they accomplish nothing, and NICS wastes many millions of dollars yearly. I would argue that if anything, background checks need to be abolished, not expanded. The criminal element will get guns regardless. No need to waste money on a token gesture which doesn't actually do anything (http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html) to prevent or reduce crime.

Sam Boca
January 25, 2013, 09:03 PM
I don't think a nuclear suitcase bomb is a poor argument, but if you'd like, how about a rocket launcher?

Are you really arguing that per the 2nd Amendment, there can be NO limitations on privately owned firearms? I doubt the Supreme Court would support you on that.
Poor argument since the 2nd Amendment refers to personal firearms, not destructive devices. Learn the difference. That's the typical straw man argument used by gun banners. It's not a valid argument.

USAF_Vet
January 25, 2013, 09:09 PM
Timmy, you said you are a Jew, and had grandparents and great-grandparents affected by the holocaust.

My cousin's husband is also a Jew, who had ancestors affected by the holocaust. I challenged him with this: If your ancestors had the means to defend themselves, would they have died in the Concentration Camps, not even treated as humans, but beasts? Or would they have fought, and probably have died, as men of honor? I ask you the same thing.

He tried to say that it could never happen in the US. I told him just a few years after the Nazi's were rounding up Jews and forcing them to live in camps, or living in squalor without enough food for their children or fuel for their homes, the US government was busy rounding up American citizens and forcing them to live in camps. The Japanese internment camps were better living conditions than what the Nazis imposed on the Jews, but no man should be forced to live as a slave. And that's exactly what happened in Germany with the Jews, and in America with the Japanese.

MarshallDodge
January 25, 2013, 09:12 PM
timmy4,

Welcome to thehighroad.org.

I want to start off by looking at the positive side of owning a firearm. Many use a firearm for fun, or sporting activities including hunting. Millions of people in this country still put food on the table for their families every year with a firearm. Things like good, healthy, hormone-free venison. Then there are activities like target practice or other competitions where millions of rounds are fired, nobody gets hurt, but there are a ton of smiles created. :)

Lastly, and most important, is the use of firearms for defense. It is estimated that a firearm is used 2.5 million times per year for defense.

While the recent tragedies in Newtown, Connecticut and Denver, Colorado shed a bad light on firearms, you have to sit back and think. Would another law have stopped those tragedies? I would have to say that the law increased the likelihood of the occurrence. The state I live in allows a teacher to carry a concealed firearm in their school. In my son's school there is a teacher who carries a gun. Scary? No, not really. You see I know this individual and he is well trained on how to use a firearm. If Adam Lanza had stepped into his classroom, the likelihood of him killing my son would have been greatly reduced by this teachers actions.

In Connecticut the law prevented a teacher from carrying the one of the best tools to defend themselves in an attack. Another law is never going to stop someone bent on hurting people, and I will give you some examples:

September 11, 2001- A group of terrorists killed nearly 3,000 people without firing a single shot.

April 19, 1995- 168 people were killed when Timothy McVeigh set off a homemade bomb.

May 18, 1927- In Bath, MI there was the worst school massacre on record in the US. 38 school children and six adults were killed with only one shot fired. Andrew Kehoe had rigged the school with timed explosives that began detonating. When people came to help he used a rifle to set off a truck full of explosives.

From what I have read, Adam Lanza broke over 40 laws the day he killed the innocent children in Connecticut. Once again, I fail to see how creating another anti-gun law is going to stop someone bent on taking a human life.

General Geoff
January 25, 2013, 09:15 PM
Poor argument since the 2nd Amendment refers to personal firearms, not destructive devices. Learn the difference. That's the typical straw man argument used by gun banners. It's not a valid argument.
The problem there is that the definition of "destructive device" is up for interpretation. Private citizens owned cannons and even warships during the founders' time, so it should be known that they likely meant to include these things as protected. Crew-served weapons in general are highly expensive not just to purchase, but also to maintain and use. Currently cannons and artillery are completely legal to own (with an NFA tax stamp), yet when is the last time you heard of a crime being committed with a howitzer?

Thus I argue that the 2nd Amendment does include conventional destructive devices. And banning them from civilian ownership would not prevent crime.

EBK
January 25, 2013, 09:18 PM
This is a great post. I will read Larry's post, but in the meantime, let me respond to yours point by point:

1. As I wrote earlier, I don't think it's possible to resist a modern tyrannical government with private weapons, should such a tragedy occur. (I don't believe it ever WILL occur.) Therefore, this sort of argument has always struck me as somewhat paranoid- that is not meant to be an insult, but I just don't know what other word to use.

2. OK, here's my rationale for removing the loophole: first, can we agree that it should be illegal for a convicted felon to purchase a gun? Under the current law in most states, this cannot be enforced because a felon can simply purchase a gun from a private seller by lying to the seller that he is NOT a felon- this is already an illegal sale, but it happens all the time because it only takes one person to knowingly break the law- the buyer. Now if we remove the loophole and force everyone to have a background check, the difference will be that in order to have an illegal sale, it will take TWO people to break the law: both the buyer and the seller. According to law enforcement, that will have a significant effect on bringing down the number of illegal sales, and thus gun crimes.

3. Again, I have to rely on the recommendations of law enforcement regarding gun magazines. The limitation is not going to have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes, but is designed specifically to have an effect on mass shootings- the idea being that if the shooter is forced to reload, it will be easier to take him down while reloading, thus lives will be saved. Obviously the example most often given is Jared Loughner.

4. My fear of guns is a personal phobia, but I don't want it to affect my judgment on these issues. Some of you apparently have a fear of government that I might consider irrational. Hopefully we can rely on rationality in terms of discussing all of these issues.


History has proved you wrong many times over on points 1 and 4.

Our nation is not special. Anything that happens in any other country can and most likely will happen here. Its a fact of life.

As for your reply to point 1. The reason most of us believe it will never happen here is because of the 2nd Amendment with out that there is little to nothing stopping it from happening here.

vamo
January 25, 2013, 09:21 PM
First thanks for coming and participating in a legitimate debate.

A few points:

To address the original question the wording "shall not be infringed" does not leave much room for regulation. Some will say courts have disagreed, but courts have become way more politicized than they were ever intended to be so we have to deal with government infringement.

On assault weapons: Unless you want to define an assault weapon as any semi-auto with a detachable magazine (the vast majority of modern weapons), then a ban really just becomes a ban of cosmetic features. Honestly against unarmed targets these weapons aren't going to be much more dangerous than a lot of things that will be exempt.

Universal background checks: This can be a form of registration, which puts a future administration in prime position to enforce a buyback, I don't know if in my lifetime there will be the political will for this to happen, but it would only take the wrong politicians being in power for a short time to happen. If you believe confiscation will never happen just go to the brady center to prevent gun violence's website, they are not shy about saying they don't want guns in civilian hands. In addition, as a non-firearms dealer and a civilian I have no ability to do a background check, making background checks universal means I have to pay somebody to do the transfer for me.

High capacity magazines: First we're talking about metal tubes with springs, they aren't that difficult to make for someone who has a little know how (I don't). Second, reloading a detachable magazine takes 2 seconds, so if a criminal needs more than 11 shots (1 in the chamber) take extra mags. Third, lets say the limit is 10, with 2 semi-auto pistols (like the va tech shooter) a person has 22 shots with this limit without having to reload, that's still a pretty terrible body count, and like I have already mentioned reloading the next magazine is very quick. High capacity magazines do however, give a person added firepower in an armed confrontation when reloading would be difficult.

Texan Scott
January 25, 2013, 09:25 PM
Timmy,

Much of the intellectual basis for my view of the right to bear arms (and most of my political opinions in general) have their roots in my understanding of the writings of Thomas Hobbes. It is almost impossible, IMO, to overstate the importance of his influence on our Founders' personal philosophies.

If you TRULY BELIEVE that all humans are equal and all have the same basic human rights that MAY NOT be violated by others, either singly or in groups, it follows that a) consent of the governed is the ONLY just basis for government, and therefore b) 'democracy' that allows a larger group to 'choose' or 'vote' to take rights away from a smaller group against their will is unacceptable. Disarming the people is a necessary first step to effectively doing this. The 2nd amendment therefore guarantees the right of the people to be armed because it truly is necessary to the security of a free State.

For democracy to be truly free and equal for all, it is imperative that we always recognize that there can be no collective right without individual rights; therefore, no collective right to govern may absolutely supersede individual rights to liberty. The majority wanting to do something does not make it less unjust to the minority. To argue otherwise is to argue simply that might makes right.

Each of us has, in some respect, an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to say "NO" to the rest of us. The 2nd amendment is about ensuring that we will always have the ABILITY to back up that right.

It's not a question of whether we "need" the right. The right EXISTS, and must be preserved. I may not think you NEED your right to petition for redress of grievances, or refuse an unwarranted search. If you aren't being charged with a crime, how important is your right to trial by jury or right against self incrimination, or right to call witnesses in your defense? How important is any ONE person's right to free speech? And yet I defend them ALL as absolute rights, because when they are necessary, they are ABSOLUTELY necessary. The right to bear arms is no different.

benEzra
January 25, 2013, 09:40 PM
My views on high capacity magazines were formed by reading some law enforcement opinions on this, starting with the police chief of Baltimore.
And, pray tell, what kind of magazines do those chiefs issue to their own officers for defensive purposes? Yup, standard civilian 15-18 round pistol magazines, and standard 20- and 30-round magazines for small-caliber rifles. Unless you believe that Baltimore police officers are issued firearms in order to "kill as many people as possible without reloading." The real purpose is reserve capacity, of course, even though (unlike non-LEO homeowners) police always have multiple magazines on their person and have full-time on-call backup, plus access to restricted weapons that other civilians may not possess without a *lot* of Federal paperwork.

As to the Nuclear Bogeyman Argument, the line between civilian small arms and restricted military ordnance was long ago settled by compromise at automatic fire and .51 caliber. A .22 caliber non-automatic civilian carbine (AR-15) is so far from a nuclear weapon or RPG as to make the argument laughable.

And if you are seriously going to argue for magazine capacity limits, setting the limit at only 2/3 of what the average American could buy in the 1860's is ludicrous. Rifle capacities over 10 rounds have been mainstream since the early 1860s and pistols over 10 rounds have been mainstream since the 1930's. You are not talking about fringe guns and magazines; you are talking about outlawing perhaps a quarter *billion* civilian magazines owned by 40-50 million citizens, and tearing the heart out of the 2nd Amendment while you're at it. No thanks.

One additional irony in the "small-caliber rifles with modern styling an existential threat" argument is that rifles as a class are the *least* misused weapons in the United States. Please take a look at the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Table 20, Murder by State and Type of Weapon; many states have *zero* rifle homicides in any given year, and many more are in the single digits. Some aggregate stats I threw together a while back:

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

(snip - get the rest of these)

2010 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
Total murders...........................12,996.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,009......46.24%
Firearms (type unknown)..................2,035......15.66%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,772......13.63%
Edged weapons............................1,704......13.11%
Hands, feet, etc...........................745.......5.73%
Shotguns...................................373.......2.87%
Rifles.....................................358.......2.75%

The 6-year trend in rifle homicides, 2005-2010:

2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348
2010: 358

That helps put things into perspective. Rifles are the least misused of all weapons in the United States; compare to edged weapons, bare hands, and blunt objects.

So, tell me again how modern-looking small-caliber civilian rifles are so amazingly dangerous...

Finally, hunting is a red herring. Only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts, and many (most?) hunters also own nonhunting guns. Like most gun owners, I'm a nonhunter who owns guns for defensive purposes and recreational target shooting, in that order. And I'd like to keep my 17-round pistol and my 20/30-round carbine, thanks.

Singletracker
January 25, 2013, 09:45 PM
Timmy,

I feel one of the major flaws we have here is that you are ignorant of firearms, this is an assumption, on my part since you state you are "afraid" of them.

Yet you support restrictions on them. Unfortunately, this is the same affliction that those who stand to remove are rights have. Sen Feinstein, who is leading the AWB charge, has no clue as to what she is banning or trying to ban.

Take a Ruger 10/22. this is a firearm held by many millions of Americans. It is primarily used to target shoot and hunt small game such as squirrels.

By itself, it does not fit under the proposed AWB. BUT, if you were to add a "Barrel shroud" (which is a cover to keep you from touching a hot barrel), or adding a forward grip, or even replacing the stock with one with a thumbhole...it instantly becomes an "assault weapon". Does that make sense? The gun, the number and type of bullets are the same. But adding a "Cosmetic" feature, now turns it to something dangerous?

This is the legislation being rammed down our throats, and it is not right.

Remember its a "Common sense" law UNTIL they come for YOUR rights!

No different than the Gov't restricting your desire for a 60" TV, when a 27" does the same job, or telling you that you must drive a Prius, because "Why would anyone NEED an F350?

Who are you, or our government to tell me "what I need"?

Art Eatman
January 25, 2013, 09:48 PM
I've been in discussions of this subject since the run-up to the Gun Control Act of 1968. Heard a lot of the pro-and-con. :)

One thing rarely mentioned is the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, which explains the purpose of that package that is the first ten amendments. They serve exclusively as a restraint on government, and are intended to protect the citizenry against the abuse of power by the State. Without the Second Amendment, we'd be left with the Nine Privileges.

Those rights exist without needing the existence of government. They are enumerated, not granted.

For those who say that a citizenry armed only with AR 15s can't resist the US military, all I know is that the US military is leaving Afghanistan and the Taliban is still there. The issue is not armaments; it's all about one's will. The will to resist on the part of any significant portion of this population will inevitably win out over a tyrannical government. However, it's easier for an armed citizenry.

Statistical studies of the rate of violent crimes where firearms are used and of gun control laws consistently show that no law affects the rate of violent crime with firearms. Consistently. To me, this raises the obvious question of, "Why bother?" Why pass a law which accomplishes nothing beyond creating hassle for the honest people who wouldn't break laws concerning crime against person?

Laws provide for punishment, but cannot prevent. It's already against the law to gratuitously injure or kill some other person.

USAF_Vet
January 25, 2013, 09:53 PM
Remember its a "Common sense" law UNTIL they come for YOUR rights!

But they ARE coming for his rights. The thing is, it's easier to give up a right when it is one that goes unexcersized. It's also easier to go along with taking the rights away.

Timmy is not a gun owner, nor is he knowledgeable about guns. His right to keep and bear arms is a right unexcersized, and that is fine. It is not fine, however, to support stripping away someone else's rights, especially under the false pretenses of "feel good" legislation.

Ms_Dragon
January 25, 2013, 10:06 PM
My guy says that with the collective modern firepower brought to bear on the middle east during The War on Terror™ would have been enough to turn the region to glass.

And yet they, American and Allied forces, lost engagements and took heavy casualties against glorified goat herders with vintage, decrepit weapons held together with duct tape.

Weapons in the hands of people with the heart, the guts and the conviction to take on a threat, regardless of how that threat is presented can and does make a difference.

Your argument that the sorts of weapons that they are seeking to ban now would be useless against a modern military is wrong.

Warp
January 25, 2013, 10:09 PM
You guys do realize that this is a shill planting their rhetoric on a gun forum for search engine access? So their arguments show as coming from this forum when people look at Google. They are playing the game for keeps. Probably follows their plan along with the emails from the king and Joe to get you to go to the new kings non-profit website and report your senators and representatives if they are not doing as the king has decreed.

I would suggest deleting the whole thread.

Gosh you guys are trusting and so calm. Kick his but to the curb.

Deleting discussions on the topic and denying people the ability to ask questions or present an opposing viewpoint?

I'd rather not.

Texan Scott
January 25, 2013, 10:16 PM
Agreed. We cannot persuade people that fear of our right to bear arms is not valid grounds to oppress it if we let fear of their free speech cause us to oppress that.
I have an honest intellectual argument for my rights. I am not ashamed of it or afraid to be heard or quoted.

henrifirstman
January 25, 2013, 10:23 PM
Timmy.
Buy a .22 rifle.
Practice safety and common sense handling procedures.
Go shoot it.
You'll probably like it.
You will then be ready for larger calibers for target practice and chances are you'll love that too.

I find that you can never truly enjoy or understand a freedom until you exercise it.

God Bless

BullfrogKen
January 25, 2013, 10:24 PM
Nope, we're going to let this continue.

Behave yourselves, or you'll take a vacation for the weekend.



For those who say that a citizenry armed only with AR 15s can't resist the US military, all I know is that the US military is leaving Afghanistan and the Taliban is still there. The issue is not armaments; it's all about one's will. The will to resist on the part of any significant portion of this population will inevitably win out over a tyrannical government. However, it's easier for an armed citizenry.


Yes, and we're leaving under hostility.

How many of our soldiers, airmen and Marines have been killed by partisans who surreptitiously got their way into the local army or police and used a gun we gave them to kill our people? 60 now?

The standing order now is - no armed foreign nationals around US forces. And no US personnel will be near any local national alone.


We're leaving, and they're shooting us in the back of the head - literally - as we leave.

Tirod
January 25, 2013, 10:28 PM
I would suggest a reading on the subject of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising in 1943.

When you read about the Polish Resistance's weak support and lack of supplying weapons and ammunition, it becomes very clear - if you can't take care of yourself as a people, then others who can and will exercise a program of euthanasia will attempt it.

This has happened repeatedly in human history. It is exactly what the British first attempted in controlling their colonies here - they arranged to safeguard the Boston Militia's firearms, and then simply walked away with the keys. Being disarmed, the city had no choice but to comply, and the British obliged themself by quartering their troops in the people's homes. There were no barracks or military facilities.

That meant knowing that when left the house for work, you were leaving two or three lonely, armed men at your home - with your wife and daughters. Not that they didn't have duties to perform, but since they lived in your house, it was up to you to put up with it. Feed them, too.

There were some ways to complain about their behavior, but after months of close proximity, even the most polite troops could finally succumb to their natural impulses and their intent be clear: Men will be men.

Since similar instances have continued to reoccur in history, in this hemisphere and around the world, you find that other peoples sometimes look to American with it's Bill of Rights as being where they would prefer to live. And they do anything to get here.

Ask around in your family, neighborhood, and friends. Unless you find someone who is Native American, ALL of our ancestors moved here to escape the oppression of their home country. Mandatory service in the Army, taxation, extremely limited opportunity, on and on - our forefathers, whether from England, India, or Italy, all wanted to get out from under the onerous conditions of their nations and move here.

One reason - the 1st Amendment, which they quickly learned was genuine. They actually could voice their opinion, and they actually could win political arguments and even in court. We as a nation have a higher law than the overseers word. Even they are supposed to adhere to the systems of government.

That 1st Amendment exists in our bylaws entirely because of the 2d. If you can't literally defend your rights from those who would oppress you, and meet them with equal resolution, they will run you over and trample your rights.

LOOK TO THE WARSAW GHETTO UPRISING. They held on as long as they could, but in the end, they simply couldn't stop the Nazi's from literally herding them in trucks and driving them off to the gas chambers of Treblinka. The Nazi's demolished the Warsaw Synagogue with explosives, and literally erased the lives of tens of thousands.

With that lesson purchased at such a high price in Jewish blood, I find it incomprehensible why so many of Jewish origins don't own guns - especially when their brothers and sisters in Israel carry them on a daily basis for the exact same reasons the Ghetto needed them. Be armed or be killed.

I don't question those of faith who choose the tenets of being a non combatant. Please don't question my right to combat those who would take away my life, my family, or my faith. We are not all chosen to be martyrs. In America, we have the right to oppose those who would violate the basic right - the right to live.

Those who would oppress us chip away at our rights, and the last American left standing will likely have a gun in his hands. They will pay a high price to pry it from his cold dead hands. Better that, than a long ride in a cold truck to be stripped and thrown in a ditch. Many in Warsaw made that choice.

Tyranny hasn't stopped, it just chooses the easiest prey.

Missileman
January 25, 2013, 10:32 PM
Deleting discussions on the topic and denying people the ability to ask questions or present an opposing viewpoint?

I'd rather not.

There is no opposing view point. He/or she isn't trying to learn anything. They are simply trying to raise and saturate their anti-gun views and rhetoric in the search engines so that anybody doing a search only gets their ideas to come up. Since most people only go 1 or 2 pages in, it's easy for them to do. They have no interest at all in anything you say.

By being so nice and polite you are playing right into the "enemies" hands. Timmy4 is probably setting in the Brady campaign offices.

This is an ideological war, but a war none the less. Continue to help their battle plan. They are playing to win.

I always respect you guys, but you are letting all the trolls and shills do exactly what they want.

Warp
January 25, 2013, 10:34 PM
There is no opposing view point. He/or she isn't trying to learn anything. They are simply trying to raise and saturate their anti-gun views and rhetoric in the search engines so that anybody doing a search only gets their ideas to come up. Since most people only go 1 or 2 pages in, it's easy for them to do. They have no interest at all in anything you say.

By being so nice and polite you are playing right into the "enemies" hands. Timmy4 is probably setting in the Brady campaign offices.

This is an ideological war, but a war none the less. Continue to help their battle plan. They are playing to win.

I always respect you guys, but you are letting all the trolls and shills do exactly what they want.

And you believe there aren't very good pro-2A arguments on the first and second pages?

beatledog7
January 25, 2013, 10:39 PM
Timmy,

2A is the right that protects all the others. Take away firearms from private hands and nothing stops government personnel from walking all over us.

Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater where there is no fire is not protected speech because it's not speech--it is sounding a false alarm, just as surely as pulling the fire alarm would be. Pulling a fire alarm is not speech. It's illegal.

If armed civilians ever have to stand up to an approaching government force, it will be an infantry force. There is no chance that even anti-gunners would tolerate air strikes or artillery shelling of gun owners making a stand. Would you tolerate it?

If you're ok with government regulating rights as long as all they're doing is squelching the legal owners of scary guns, what happens when government decides to curtail a right you do love? If you think the government effort to squash 2A is benevolent and caring and that it is only trying to save the lives of children, your head is in the sand. Its goal is to confiscate all guns, and it is currently taking an incremental step whenever it sees an opening just as it has been doing since 1934.

Keeping guns out of the hands of violent felons and dangerously mentally ill is indeed important, especially given the high proportion of crimes involving guns that are committed by members of these demographic categories. On this we agree, it seems. You argue that if guns are plentiful and have lots of bullets that it's too easy for these people to acquire them and use them to kill innocents, and I can mostly agree there as well. But the way to keep these people from getting guns is not by removing the guns from places they can access--it is too deny them access to places where people can acquire guns. Yes, that means keeping in prisons and in institutions. If we as a society don't trust them to mingle with us, then why are we letting them do so?

My guns are not a danger to anyone who doesn't first pose a danger to me or my family or innocent others within my power to protect. Do you really want to take mine away or hamstring them so severely that only the bad guy--whom we all know will never comply with any law that stands between him and his desire to commit crimes--still has guns of full capacity? When one or two or a handful of those guys, all on meth and cocaine and who knows what else, attacks you and your family, and I'm nearby, close enough to intervene and save you, do you want me to be unarmed? Do you want me to have just ten rounds?

BullfrogKen
January 25, 2013, 10:41 PM
Missileman,

I just told you the Staff's position is we will allow this debate to continue.

Don't presume to tell the membership what debates this site should allow when the Staff has already weighed in on the matter.


Seeing as Timmy said at quarter after 7 Eastern -

Everyone, I have enjoyed this immensly, but I have to run- for now. I will be back. Want to assure you that I am not a troll- I enjoy good discussion and debate. I also am not here to spread talking points- I've never seen the point of that. I really appreciate all of the responses so far.

He will be back.

But there has been another 3 pages of "response" since then. I imagine by the time he gets back there will be too many reponses for him to read and respond to.


So I'm taking this action.

I'm temporarily closing the thread. When timmy gets back, he can read through the responses without being overwhelmed. And timmy, when you're ready for the debate to continue, PM anyone on the Staff you see on the board at the time and we'll reopen it for discussion.


In the meantime, Missileman, consider this a healthy debate that is useful to everyone. Even if you think he's a shill, which the Staff does not believe to be true, it will give you an opportunity to sharpen your debating skills. We'll all need them well-polished in the coming months.

timmy, as I said, send a PM to any of the Staff you see on the board (our names appear in bold among the rest of the members at the bottom of the main page) and we'll gladly re-open it for the discussion.

Happy to have you here.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 01:37 AM
Glad you guys chose to open up this thread again. I want to write first that I appreciate the good will and discussion here. I was hoping to find good discussion and debate in this forum, and it appears that I have. Many of you are quite knowledgeable on these issues. I'm only sorry I can't respond to every post- there's just been too many.

I also want to say that I am not a troll, and not a shill looking to "plant rhetoric" as Missileman accused me of. I certainly have my own point of views, and many of them probably disagree with many of yours. But there's no secret plot here. And if there was one, I don't think it would work. You guys don't strike me as stupid or easily persuaded.

That being said: it strikes me that about 80% of the discussion in this thread has been devoted to the question of a tyranny, and how gun restrictions would either help lead to a tyranny or prevent you as private citizens from combating a tyranny or both. People have brought up Nazi Germany, the Warsaw Ghetto, slavery, and other examples. I want to emphasize that, among my friends who support forms of gun control, this subject never comes up except as a matter of derision towards you folks. It makes liberals and independents believe that you guys are extremist and paranoid. I hope I'm not insulting anyone, but I'm trying to be honest here. In terms of trying to convince people like me, you are much more convincing when you argue the ineffectiveness of the proposals. Even if I disagree with some of those arguments as well, they are rational arguments that people on the "other side" can wrap their heads around.
As for myself, I don't mind discussing the tyranny issue, but a warning: if my knowledge of guns is limited, my knowledge of history is pretty damn good. And I'm going to take to task anyone who makes false claims. Let me make three statements:

1. In modern history, no dictatorship has ever seized guns from private citizens as a means to impose the dictatorship- in the rare cases when it happened, it was usually an afterthought, and the seizure of those guns had no effect on the imposition of the dictatorship.
2. In modern history, there has never been a "slippery slope", in which modest gun laws led to seizure of all guns which led to a dictatorship.
3. In modern history, there has never been a situation where private ownership of guns was able to fight off a dictatorship.

I challenge any of you to contradict these points with real examples. If you can, I will of course change my mind, and I will come in here and acknowledge it. But I don't believe you can.

Alaska444
January 26, 2013, 02:00 AM
Just a note on Germany: the Nazis did not disarm it citizens. Yes, there were laws disarming the Jews, but very few of them had arms anyhow. The bulk of German population actually increased private gun ownership- it was encouraged all throughout the Nazi regime. Germany wasn't disarmed until we did it in 1945.

As far as Vietnam goes, we didn't face privately armed civilians there, we faced guerillas being armed by other countries. To the best of my knowledge, there is no example in modern history where privately armed citizens ever held their own against a military force.
Sorry, I guess you never heard of the American revolution.

mljdeckard
January 26, 2013, 02:01 AM
Let me ask you this. Has a successful genocide been committed against any population that was well-armed?

Just because the events have happened in different order doesn't mean that they had nothing to do with each other.

Sam Cade
January 26, 2013, 02:01 AM
In modern history, no dictatorship has ever seized guns from private citizens as a means to impose the dictatorship

Eh?

Marcos in the Philippines.
(as a precursor to seizing power.)

Castro.

Mao.

etc etc....

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 02:03 AM
Sorry, I guess you never heard of the American revolution.
The American Revolution would have been lost if not for help from France.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 02:04 AM
Let me ask you this. Has a successful genocide been committed against any population that was well-armed?

Just because the events have happened in different order doesn't mean that they had nothing to do with each other.
Yes. The Armenians in Turkey were armed, as were the Ukrainians in the 1920s. I believe the Cambodian villagers slaughtered by Pol Pot were fairly well armed as well.

Private arms are irrelevant to genocide.

hso
January 26, 2013, 02:06 AM
But it would not have been won without the armed resistance of the Colonists. The fact that another nation eventually intervened to support the Revolution doesn't mean that the French won the war.

Solo
January 26, 2013, 02:08 AM
Yes. The Armenians in Turkey were armed, as were the Ukrainians in the 1920s. I believe the Cambodian villagers slaughtered by Pol Pot were fairly well armed as well.

Private arms are irrelevant to genocide.
I am unfamiliar with these genocides; what books or scholarly articles would you recommend I read to learn more about them and how well armed the victims were?

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 02:09 AM
Eh?

Marcos in the Philippines.
(as a precursor to seizing power.)

Castro.

Mao.

etc etc....
Certainly not Mao nor Castro. Both of them rose to power by arming the citizenry, not removing the arms.

The case of Marcos is a little more complicated. It's true that when he imposed his dictatorship, he passed certain laws that made most private gun ownership illegal. Yet this fact is highly deceptive. First off, private gun ownership was not prevalent in the Phillipines when the law was passed. Second, it's highly doubtful that the alternative would have been a revolt, as Marcos' dictatorship was incredibly popular. He was paranoid and feared assassination, but his regime would not have been overthrown due to private gun ownership. And most importantly, when Marcos finally was ousted it was due to a democratic movement in which armed resistance played no role whatsoever.

So no, I don't believe that any of the examples are valid, sorry.

Sam Cade
January 26, 2013, 02:10 AM
3. In modern history, there has never been a situation where private ownership of guns was able to fight off a dictatorship.

Will you accept the formation of citizens militia which overthrows the dictatorial government?


If so, just recently:

Libya.

Syria (they are gonna win, sooner or later)

...and the nasty little war the Croats had for their independence involved a great many private citizens taking up arms.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 02:13 AM
I am unfamiliar with these genocides; what books or scholarly articles would you recommend I read to learn more about them and how well armed the victims were?
These are two of the most famous genocides of the 20th century. There are dozens of books written about them. I have no specific ones to recommend. Start with Wikipedia.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 02:15 AM
Will you accept the formation of citizens militia which overthrows the dictatorial government?


If so, just recently:

Libya.

Syria (they are gonna win, sooner or later)

...and the nasty little war the Croats had for their independence involved a great many private citizens taking up arms.
In the case of both Syria and Libya, the rebels are armed by outsiders (including the United States). Left to their own devices, the revolts would have been easily crushed.

mljdeckard
January 26, 2013, 02:16 AM
It is not true that Cambodia OR Armenia were well armed. They had both been legislatively disarmed prior to their genocide events. (Come on man, this stuff isn't hard to find.)

http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html

9MMare
January 26, 2013, 02:16 AM
My guy says that with the collective modern firepower brought to bear on the middle east during The War on Terror™ would have been enough to turn the region to glass.

And yet they, American and Allied forces, lost engagements and took heavy casualties against glorified goat herders with vintage, decrepit weapons held together with duct tape.

Weapons in the hands of people with the heart, the guts and the conviction to take on a threat, regardless of how that threat is presented can and does make a difference.

Your argument that the sorts of weapons that they are seeking to ban now would be useless against a modern military is wrong.

Some good stuff right here.

Sam Cade
January 26, 2013, 02:17 AM
Certainly not Mao nor Castro. Both of them rose to power by arming the citizenry, not removing the arms.

By arming SOME of the citizens and DISARMING others.


First off, private gun ownership was not prevalent in the Phillipines when the law was passed.

O.K. I'll bite.

How prevalent was it? Got Cites?


Second, it's highly doubtful that the alternative would have been a revolt, as Marcos' dictatorship was incredibly popular

Oh yes. Soooooo popular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution

Ms_Dragon
January 26, 2013, 02:21 AM
Battles of Lexington and Concord.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_concord

9MMare
January 26, 2013, 02:23 AM
In the meantime, Missileman, consider this a healthy debate that is useful to everyone. Even if you think he's a shill, which the Staff does not believe to be true, it will give you an opportunity to sharpen your debating skills. We'll all need them well-polished in the coming months.

.

Heh, oh yeah.

But we should be more than happy to accommodate him. Some of us argue with people we know will never change their minds all the time...knowing that it gives us a platform to speak our mind and present our side.

Gives us practice honing our arguments for when they really count :D

j.kramer
January 26, 2013, 02:23 AM
In the case of both Syria and Libya, the rebels are armed by outsiders (including the United States). Left to their own devices, the revolts would have been easily crushed.

so you say its better for us citizens to be armed by outsiders?

or let us keep our arms as the second amendment says

Sam Cade
January 26, 2013, 02:24 AM
In the case of both Syria and Libya, the rebels are armed by outsiders (including the United States).

Not that the source of small arms in the hands of the citizenry matters but...

Back that up. Got Cites?




The ownership of private arms was wholly illegal in Libya*. The citizenry armed themselves chiefly by raiding government armories.







*my spellcheck wants to autocorrect Libya to labia. LOL!

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 02:24 AM
One of the moderators sent me a post about the Battle of Athens in 1946. This is a fascinating story to me, and its one that I was unaware of until tonight. I believe that it may justify the 2nd Amendment on a micro level, but I already was willing to accept that argument. I want to stress that I am a believer in the 2nd Amendment. I just don't believe that it would be effective on a macro level, nor has it ever been.

In other words, private citizens can be effective using firearms to protect themselves against home invasion or from a corrupt local government. But I don't believe they can be effective protecting themselves against a national government.

goon
January 26, 2013, 02:25 AM
Timmy4 - have you ever heard of Timothy Murphy?
He was the American marksman who killed British General Simon Frazier at Saratoga, NY in 1777.
Historians generally agree that France only entered the war because the American colonists showed themselves capable of winning a battle at Saratoga. A civilian using his own rifle made a shot count on that battlefield and affected the outcome of the entire war. His actions helped get us that French aid, which we did need to win.

In any case, the Second Amendment has been decided as an individual right. At the very least, Heller vs. DC outlines a right to own weapons in common use and to use them for self defense.
The AR-15 is one of the most popular rifles in this country. Magpul is currently working on a backlog of over 1 million magazines, and there are probably a billion high capacity magazines in circulation in this country right now. People are buying them as fast as they can be made. If that doesn't institute common use, I don't know what does.

In reading the words of the Founders, it is evident that many of them saw an armed population as a deterrent to tyranny. Whether that's relevant or not in today's world isn't really even the point. The right exists and if people want to change that, there is a system in place to change the Constitution. I would argue against it and oppose it vigorously, but if this country did decide to repeal the Second Amendment and place some kind of restrictions on arms, I'd abide by it. I wouldn't like it, but I'd obey the law.
But opponents of the RKBA need to stop trying to gut it with legislation. Go about it the right way, or don't do it at all.

You also may want to check out the Liberal Gun Club discussion forum. I just found them myself... and was shocked to find a community of liberals who are all firearms enthusiasts. But I think my ideology is more in line with them than it is with the "right."

CGT80
January 26, 2013, 02:25 AM
If us pro2a guys have no chance at taking on the government, they why do politicians and big government supporters want to restrict firearms so much? If rifles are only used in 6% of murders, they why do they want to take away the semi auto rifles, yet they let pistols slide (other than magazine capacities)? Why is it that the few cases in which rifles are used, it is all over the news, but local deaths due to pistols don't make the nightly news?

Could it be that people think they will be able to control us, if we are not armed as well? Do they want to weaken the general public? If one person can cause so much devastation in a school, then what can a whole militia of like minded citizens do? What if some LEO's and military side on the citizens' side and help them out?

The government already tells us how much we will pay in taxes, what we can and can not buy, how we have to build vehicles to strict emissions standards, and they tell us that we have to buy health insurance, among other things. It sounds like we serve our government, rather than government serving the people. Many of us are already unhappy about the government controlling our lives. The people who don't mind, are probably the same ones who want to do away with gun rights. They don't loose anything if the 2nd Amendment disappears. We loose everything we stand for.

The speed limit doesn't stop people from speeding, laws don't prevent people from causing harm to others, making drugs illegal doesn't protect us from having people hooked on drugs. Should bars be made illegal? How many people drive to the bar, have a few, and decide they are good to drive home? There are many who will use a designated driver or will hang out and eat and drink without consuming alcohol. They know what is right and wrong. Gun owners know right from wrong, and are generally law abiding. Why should the masses pay the price for a few? If people really want a gun, they can obtain it the same way they get their illegal drugs. If that is more difficult, they will find some other way to do harm. It comes down to the persons intent, not what object they have. Where there is a will, there is a way!

hso
January 26, 2013, 02:26 AM
In the case of both Syria and Libya, the rebels are armed by outsiders (including the United States). Left to their own devices, the revolts would have been easily crushed.

You seem to want absolutes and the world is rarely a matter of black and white absolutes.

If the start of a revolution through armed resistance by the population would be crushed without outside support that doesn't invalidate that the population had the capability to resist and hold on long enough to receive assistance from internal sources like defecting police and military units or outside sources. Without that initial unsupported ability to resist the opportunity for assistance would never have come about. The validity of the benefit of armed resistance by citizens isn't based on success at every point in the struggle.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 02:29 AM
Heh, oh yeah.

But we should be more than happy to accommodate him. Some of us argue with people we know will never change their minds all the time...knowing that it gives us a platform to speak our mind and present our side.

Gives us practice honing our arguments for when they really count :D
I don't know why people think I'm a shill. As I understand it, that would mean that I am fake somehow. But I've been very open in my disagreements. If I were a shill, I would probably pretend to agree with you guys and then throw around some fake quotes or some stupid arguments that hopefully you might absorb. But I've been pretty honest.

I am not trying to win anything here. I don't see this as a game.

9MMare
January 26, 2013, 02:31 AM
If you don't think small arms can resist a large army, I'd invite you to revisit your understanding of the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan (against the US and Russia), Vietnam, and the Revolutionary War. History is not on your side.

Also, LEO's are far from a unified block regarding gun control. Did you know many are saying they won't enforce further infringements on the 2nd Amendment?

Exactly. And that doesnt even take into consideration the ability of the govt to command our own troops against us. A great many will not. And they will be an entryway into many more tactics, arms, and bigger and better weaponry.

For whatever faults it has, Rawlings' "Patriots" paints a decent picture of how this could possibly go down....as have many other SHTF/post-apocalyptic authors.

And even if we dont win, that's doubtful...it doesnt matter. The toll wouldnt be worth it.

BobTheTomato
January 26, 2013, 02:31 AM
I would like to point out in Rwanda the Tutsis were hacked to death with machetes and other knives by their neighbors. The Hutus were told by the government to kill the Tutsis or they would be shot. Gang rape and mutilation and horrific things followed. Had people been armed they might not have been murdered or it would not have gone so easily. It might not have stopped it but I am sure the people with nothing other than their hands or a piece of wood to defend themselves knowing a gang of people were about to kill their family and rape any women present before slaughtering them would have gladly died fighting.

d-dogg
January 26, 2013, 02:32 AM
Wow! Timmy4. What a nice non-threatening username.

Comes in hear and expects everyone to defend their opinions to him.

I'm not playing Timmy4. I, for one, am tired of people demanding I defend my beliefs to them.

How about you, Timmy4, defend yourself to us?

What gives you the right to question our right to keep and bear arms? What give anyone the right to question what we want to do?

Does your fear of weapons give you the right to want to take away ours?

Can you show any examples of any firearm owned past or present by any member of this forum having been used in a crime?

Have you ever served in the military? Or done anything else to serve your country, and protect the rights of its citizenry? Even participated in a neighborhood watch?

I suspect your life has centered around book learning. Like so many, you've probably never lived outside of your comfort zone and had real life experiences. You won't gain experience here on an internet forum. If you really want to experience the "gun culture", get out and meet people. Go to a range, rent a weapon, and when you've sent a few hundred rounds down range, see if your opinions don't start to change.

My advice to fellow members? Get off the defensive. Playing a defensive game only ensures loss. Imagine the Super Bowl coming up. Teams will score by being on the offensive. This battle for our rights is no different.

9MMare
January 26, 2013, 02:32 AM
I don't know why people think I'm a shill. As I understand it, that would mean that I am fake somehow. But I've been very open in my disagreements. If I were a shill, I would probably pretend to agree with you guys and then throw around some fake quotes or some stupid arguments that hopefully you might absorb. But I've been pretty honest.

I am not trying to win anything here. I don't see this as a game.

That's nice.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 02:34 AM
If us pro2a guys have no chance at taking on the government, they why do politicians and big government supporters want to restrict firearms so much? If rifles are only used in 6% of murders, they why do they want to take away the semi auto rifles, yet they let pistols slide (other than magazine capacities)? Why is it that the few cases in which rifles are used, it is all over the news, but local deaths due to pistols don't make the nightly news?

Could it be that people think they will be able to control us, if we are not armed as well? Do they want to weaken the general public? If one person can cause so much devastation in a school, then what can a whole militia of like minded citizens do? What if some LEO's and military side on the citizens' side and help them out?

The government already tells us how much we will pay in taxes, what we can and can not buy, how we have to build vehicles to strict emissions standards, and they tell us that we have to buy health insurance, among other things. It sounds like we serve our government, rather than government serving the people. Many of us are already unhappy about the government controlling our lives. The people who don't mind, are probably the same ones who want to do away with gun rights. They don't loose anything if the 2nd Amendment disappears. We loose everything we stand for.

The speed limit doesn't stop people from speeding, laws don't prevent people from causing harm to others, making drugs illegal doesn't protect us from having people hooked on drugs. Should bars be made illegal? How many people drive to the bar, have a few, and decide they are good to drive home? There are many who will use a designated driver or will hang out and eat and drink without consuming alcohol. They know what is right and wrong. Gun owners know right from wrong, and are generally law abiding. Why should the masses pay the price for a few? If people really want a gun, they can obtain it the same way they get their illegal drugs. If that is more difficult, they will find some other way to do harm. It comes down to the persons intent, not what object they have. Where there is a will, there is a way!
Great question! Now we get to the heart of the matter. You believe that government tries to control your firearms because they want to control YOU. I believe that government tries to regulate, not control your firearms because they honestly believe in some cases, as I do, that there are ways to either eliminate some of these terrible mass shootings or at least make them less deadly.

Now I'm sure you will disagree with that last statement. Go ahead and do so; disagree all you want, but do not make the error of mistaking the motives of those who oppose you. With very few exceptions, they are well-meaning, and do not have the ulterior motives you and others ascribe to them.

mljdeckard
January 26, 2013, 02:36 AM
(By the way, the article I posted in #149 has some great detail, of which I was not previously aware. Good read.)

mljdeckard
January 26, 2013, 02:38 AM
Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama, and Janet Reno, just for quick examples, have all said that they intend to eventually confiscate all firearms. Why would you not believe their own words?

9MMare
January 26, 2013, 02:40 AM
they honestly believe in some cases, as I do, that there are ways to either eliminate some of these terrible mass shootings or at least make them less deadly.
.

Cool. How do laws restricting the firearms of regular citizens prevent mass shootings (about as rare as airline crashes or wildfires that destroy hundreds of homes) or make them less deadly?

And is that your only issue with Americans owning and carrying firearms? (Sorry, didnt read the whole thread). Or do you have others, besides your personal fear?

Hey, did you see the video of the town councilman in Oak Harbor, WA who walked out of a council meeting because someone was legally carrying a firearm? It's been on the news and a YouTube is circulating.

j.kramer
January 26, 2013, 02:41 AM
Great question! Now we get to the heart of the matter. You believe that government tries to control your firearms because they want to control YOU. I believe that government tries to regulate, not control your firearms because they honestly believe in some cases, as I do, that there are ways to either eliminate some of these terrible mass shootings or at least make them less deadly.

Now I'm sure you will disagree with that last statement. Go ahead and do so; disagree all you want, but do not make the error of mistaking the motives of those who oppose you. With very few exceptions, they are well-meaning, and do not have the ulterior motives you and others ascribe to them.

as in every society there are crazy people and some of them are in government
i believe some of them crazies do want to control us because they are sick with power
many of them might even think they are doing good

on the mass shootings there is no way to stop them
the same way you stop drug smugling is the same way you stop people from having weapons so you see there is no way of doing that

goon
January 26, 2013, 02:42 AM
You seem to want absolutes and the world is rarely a matter of black and white absolutes.

If the start of a revolution through armed resistance by the population would be crushed without outside support that doesn't invalidate that the population had the capability to resist and hold on long enough to receive assistance from internal sources like defecting police and military units or outside sources. Without that initial unsupported ability to resist the opportunity for assistance would never have come about. The validity of the benefit of armed resistance by citizens isn't based on success at every point in the struggle.


Also, being armed could provide the necessary psychological support to resist.
Most of the gun owners I know have considered the possibility of having to resist someone at some point, even if only in a very hypothetical sense. Many are veterans and many more have at least had to master an adrenaline rush in a hunting situation to accurately deliver a round on target.

That doesn't necessarily make them an effective fighting force, but being armed and being able to steady your nerves enough, and having the Second Amendment in your corner as reassurance that you are in the right... well it's certainly better than being armed with a pitchfork.

It's not that a partisan force would even have to win. They just have to make the whole damn thing more trouble than it's worth.

IlikeSA
January 26, 2013, 02:42 AM
Timmy4, while I agree with you about taking on a national government and winning, many examples have been given about taking on a national government and having a draw. Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviets and US), Iraq, and pretty much anywhere else the US has stuck its nose in the last 50 years. While neither side won, in each case the invading power left, or is leaving.

It wasn't effective when the Federal government invaded the Confederacy, but there were times when the North had very bad morale and suffered horrendous defeats. The war probably wouldn't have lasted as long as it did had not Southerners been armed. The Southern army was not made up of professional soldiers on a whole, but farmers, merchants, hunters who wanted to resist what they saw as tyranny. They organized themselves as a nation, an army, and built up the logistics to resist. I believe they did a very effective job at it as well.

As I stated previously: Under most oh history's viewpoint, we may not be under a tyrannical government now, but what is to say that it won't happen in 4, 10 or 20 years? Wouldn't you rather trust your neighbor, who you know, to a tyrant 1000 miles away who enforces edicts at the point of a gun?

9MMare
January 26, 2013, 02:44 AM
Timmy is frightened of guns.



He has every right to be afraid of guns.

Some people are afraid of dogs.

I'm afraid of spiders.

He claims that's not his motivating factor in his journey of discovery.

And even if it was, it is not a legitimate reason for curtailing the rights of others.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 02:45 AM
Wow! Timmy4. What a nice non-threatening username.

Comes in hear and expects everyone to defend their opinions to him.

I'm not playing Timmy4. I, for one, am tired of people demanding I defend my beliefs to them.

How about you, Timmy4, defend yourself to us?

What gives you the right to question our right to keep and bear arms? What give anyone the right to question what we want to do?

Does your fear of weapons give you the right to want to take away ours?

Can you show any examples of any firearm owned past or present by any member of this forum having been used in a crime?

Have you ever served in the military? Or done anything else to serve your country, and protect the rights of its citizenry? Even participated in a neighborhood watch?

I suspect your life has centered around book learning. Like so many, you've probably never lived outside of your comfort zone and had real life experiences. You won't gain experience here on an internet forum. If you really want to experience the "gun culture", get out and meet people. Go to a range, rent a weapon, and when you've sent a few hundred rounds down range, see if your opinions don't start to change.

My advice to fellow members? Get off the defensive. Playing a defensive game only ensures loss. Imagine the Super Bowl coming up. Teams will score by being on the offensive. This battle for our rights is no different.
This will be my last post of the night, guys. I need to go to bed. I will try to respond more in the morning.

1. I don't expect anyone to defend themselves to me. I've asked some questions, and some people were kind enough to answer. I make no demands.
2. I'm happy to answer your questions. Here goes:
3. As an American citizen, I reserve the right to give my opinion about any law or proposed law. That includes all issues of gun ownership.
4. You live in a civilized society, not out in the woods. That gives everyone else who lives in said society the right to question what you do. It doesn't necessarily give them the right to enforce their will upon you, but it does give them the right to question.
5. My fear of firearms is immaterial to the discussion of what should be done about them. I wrote that to provide an honest evaluation of my own personal biases so that people could understand where I was coming from. It does not make me any more correct nor incorrect in my opinions on this issue.
6. I don't know anyone in this forum. I believe, strongly, that most people who own guns are law-abiding citizens, and I have no reason to believe otherwise regarding people in this forum. Since I haven't even come close to making such an accusation, I'm a little bit surprised by your question.
7. No, I have not served in the military. My father and grandfather did. I have great respect for anyone who serves or has served. I thank them for their service and for protecting my freedom.
8. I don't know what you mean by life experiences. Since you asked, I can tell you that I have been to firing ranges and to gun shows. I have close friends who own guns. I never have, but my personal fear of them stems from about 10 years ago when I was carjacked; I had a gun stuck close to my head. I recognize that my fear is irrational. I try not to let it affect my judgment.

Hope that answers all of your questions. Good night, everyone!

1911 guy
January 26, 2013, 02:49 AM
Some of them ARE well meaning. That's precisely what terrifies me sometimes.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. Treat me with benign neglect.– C. S. Lewis

The second amendment was put in place by Founders who saw a real threat from government, even the government they themselves had created. The point was not that they envisioned a coming conflict between the government and the people, they sought to prevent it by making the people have parity with the government.

I'm going to make a statement that will probably bend your mind a little regarding supposed "high capacity" magazines. They offer no benefit nor liability for someone intent on a mass shooting. Simply inserting another lesser capacity magazine in place of the now empty one results in a freshly loaded firearm in approximately one to two seconds. In fact, I could, if you wanted me to, make a case that a determined shooter with the same amount of ammunition distributed in a larger number of lesser capacity magazines may in fact be more likely to kill more people.

As far as background checks, most criminals report getting their guns from theft, either directly or from a "fence". Imposing checks on gun owners would do nothing to deter an already established black market.

9MMare
January 26, 2013, 02:51 AM
Sleep tight.

My signature clarifies some things for me, "Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."

And everyone has to decide how much responsibility they want to take for their own lives and own safety...and realize that 'freedom' means some risks in life. How much freedom we are willing to give up for that safety is up to us.

The rarity of random shootings seems a silly thing to give up freedom for. And the frequency of crime seems like a very good reason to retain as much of my freedom and 2A rights as possible (even tho that is not the reason for the 2A).

BobTheTomato
January 26, 2013, 02:54 AM
With very few exceptions, they are well-meaning, and do not have the ulterior motives you and others ascribe to them.

If politicians were truly well meaning, they would be trying to do something about murder in Chicago or DC. As many have pointed out here many of these rabidly anti gun governmental officials hate concealed carry but carry a firearm themselves. Diane Finstein has a CCW but she thinks you shouldn't. They gladly accept armed guards with automatic weapons but you can't have a glock with more than 10 rounds.

You know what? When Obama gets up and says, "Hey I gonna take Uncle Joe's advice and tell the secret service to drop the full autos and use good old double barrels like he suggested." Then I might start to believe him. Biden actually did say a shotgun was a better defense weapon:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-so-you-want-keep-people-away-earthquake-buy-some-shotgun-shells_697650.html

When cops can only have 10 round mags and no scary features then I might start to get on board. I mean we potentially face the same threats as the police.....right?

Oh and you say no slippery slope will happen but NY just went from 10 to 7. I guess if there is another tragedy they might go to 5. I mean you can't let a good tragedy go to waste.

hso
January 26, 2013, 02:55 AM
I just don't believe that it would be effective on a macro level, nor has it ever been.

In other words, private citizens can be effective using firearms to protect themselves against home invasion or from a corrupt local government. But I don't believe they can be effective protecting themselves against a national government.

The fact that it works on the micro level should be sufficient to validate the importance of the 2A.

WRT the "macro" level, if armed resistance does work on the micro level then it can provide the kernel of a successful revolution on the macro level. That initial and core resistance has lead internal forces to question the validity of firing on their own people and the validity of the government opposed by the revolutionaries. This weakens the illegal government directly and triggering defections to the revolutionaries give greater arms and support to the revolution. The same kernel of revolution also leads to outside support like we saw take place in the Arab Spring and is taking place in Syria.

Even in those cases where the revolution is crushed it has lead to changes in government that improve the freedoms of the citizens and bring those nations closer to democratic government. The Kurds achieved partial success and a level of autonomy. The Algerians pushed the French into autonomy and eventually independence. You don't have to win everything to have made a difference in the course of a nation.

MarshallDodge
January 26, 2013, 03:00 AM
timmy4, you put too much faith in the government.

They have failed us multiple times. Unable to balance a budget, stop the war on drugs, provide good schooling, and now Medicare and social security are in trouble.

During a disaster, including the LA riots and Katrina, they were unable to provide security. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not obligated to come to your house if 911 is called.

Something to think about.

wankerjake
January 26, 2013, 03:05 AM
Great question! Now we get to the heart of the matter. You believe that government tries to control your firearms because they want to control YOU. I believe that government tries to regulate, not control your firearms because they honestly believe in some cases, as I do, that there are ways to either eliminate some of these terrible mass shootings or at least make them less deadly.

Now I'm sure you will disagree with that last statement. Go ahead and do so; disagree all you want, but do not make the error of mistaking the motives of those who oppose you. With very few exceptions, they are well-meaning, and do not have the ulterior motives you and others ascribe to them.

As I see the matter;

I tend to agree that a lot of government officials, probably most of them, are not concerned with instating a tyrant. They are trying to "make everyone safer." We believe they are misinformed about what gun control in general will actually accomplish. I think it's been covered why (long thread) that most of us disagree that the proposed measures to restrict firearms will be ineffective at reducing violence or making mass shooting less deadly. Someone hell bent on destroying a body of people will find creative ways to do it. The AR-15 is the hot topic right now, but these mass killings have happened plenty of times with handguns. Tim McVeigh killed 168 people with bombs. Terrorists killed 3000 people with airplanes on 9/11/01. Bad people do bad things, restricting weapons from a large body of law-abiding public has not and will not be effective in stopping this.

This is a morbid thought, but I think it's valid. Do you think the goblin Adam Lanza would not have killed 20 children had he not had access to an AR-15? Or 30 round mags? Mag changes happen quickly, and children aren't going to stop you. He trapped 20 6-year-olds in a classroom... he could have done it with a crowbar.

Getting back to tyranny...I'm not sure paranoia is a very good description, governments have a long history of killing their subjects. The fear of some and to an extent myself is that while the current government may want to remove firearms and impose restrictions with the goal or preventing violence, what about the next officials, and the next? You might get a shift towards tyranny and couple that with an unarmed citizenry, and I find it hard to believe that it is not easier for a government to slaughter unarmed subjects than armed ones. The authors of our constitution, with the events of the revolution fresh in their minds, certainly thought that an armed public would be sizable deterrent. I guess we tend to agree with them. If regulations aren't going to curb violence, why risk tyranny on top of fit?

9MMare
January 26, 2013, 03:06 AM
timmy4, you put too much faith in the government.

.

And IMO, every thing that you give over to the govt to fix or take care of is freedom you give up. (And realistically, wont necessarily make you safer...in the case of firearms, it only gives criminals more power and punishes the law-abiding)

sawdeanz
January 26, 2013, 03:07 AM
I would consider myself the less paranoid gun owner, and contrary to the stereotype I don't think most gun guys could invision taking up arms against the government in their life time. However keep in mind that just over 150 years ago a civil war was fought on our soil. Look at the world around you anthat d tell me our children, or grandchildren or great grandchildren will contine to live in the same cushy lifestyle we enjoy. Come back to now and tell me how effective the government is at preventing looting and rampant crime after a national disaster like katrina. This is all in the spirit of the 2nd amendment.

You challenge our fears of a slippery slope, do you not see the onerous restrictions placed on europeans, or the incremental laws of our own country?

Yes the 2nd like other amendments is subject to restriction, but only after a very strict test. Compare the number on exceptions to the other 9 bill of rights and then compare that to the number of excemptions to "shall not be infringed." Modern technology btw is all covered by the other amendments. How can you tell me that the assault weapons ban passes the strict test required by the amendments without showing me the clear facts that this law would actually make this country safer. Tell me why it makes sence that dove world outreach can protest at soldiers funerals but a rifle isn't covered by the 2nd because it has a pistol grip. Rather than ask us why the 2nd is so unpenetrable, ask yoursellf why you think it is so disposable. How many criminals escape justice and kill again because of the 4th, or plan criminal activity because they can use computers , freedom is not without its price, but I would venture to say you would quickly espouse the virtues of the others, so whyy not the 2nd?

wankerjake
January 26, 2013, 03:12 AM
8. I don't know what you mean by life experiences. Since you asked, I can tell you that I have been to firing ranges and to gun shows. I have close friends who own guns. I never have, but my personal fear of them stems from about 10 years ago when I was carjacked; I had a gun stuck close to my head. I recognize that my fear is irrational. I try not to let it affect my judgment

That would scare the crap out of any one of us. Any one. The problem is that the gun is not what you should have been afraid of. The human holding it is who you should have feared. The gun is just an inanimate piece of machinery, it can only do what it is told. That is why the focus needs to be on people. That is the real answer. And it's not an easy one, that is for sure.

Vanfanel
January 26, 2013, 03:14 AM
I have a question for you timmy, how would you feel if this debates was about the first amendment and the government was saying you could only use it 7 or 10 words at a time and then had to take a break before you could use it again?

BullfrogKen
January 26, 2013, 03:16 AM
That being said: it strikes me that about 80% of the discussion in this thread has been devoted to the question of a tyranny, and how gun restrictions would either help lead to a tyranny or prevent you as private citizens from combating a tyranny or both. People have brought up Nazi Germany, the Warsaw Ghetto, slavery, and other examples. I want to emphasize that, among my friends who support forms of gun control, this subject never comes up except as a matter of derision towards you folks. It makes liberals and independents believe that you guys are extremist and paranoid. I hope I'm not insulting anyone, but I'm trying to be honest here. In terms of trying to convince people like me, you are much more convincing when you argue the ineffectiveness of the proposals. Even if I disagree with some of those arguments as well, they are rational arguments that people on the "other side" can wrap their heads around.


Look, I don't care if it never comes up among your friends in a discussion. That's not on it's face evidence it's never happened; not happened to people we know - even if your friends don't know them; and think it won't ever happen again.

OK, you threw your Jewish heritage on the table for discussion.


Allow me to throw my Irish heritage onto the table for discussion.


My ancestors fled Northen Ireland after British political and religious differences, enforced by military oppression, starved our families out and they spent what little money they had to buy sea passage to come here, to America.

They arrived here after a 2 month trip across the North Atlantic. They were forced by an unwelcoming nation to settle in Western PA. We were oppressed by those who ran the local governments to either accept menial, even deadly jobs, to make a living when we got here, or go someplace else to eat. American's didn't want the Irish coming here to take jobs at rates less than the current rate that most "native Americans" would accept, so they went West, into the frontier, which at the time was Western PA and Indians were still raiding communities here.

So my ancestral family farmed. Some of my family did well. Decades later my Godmother - it's a Catholic thing you might not appreciate - my Dad's sister, opened a gas station/conveniece store with her husband in the 70's in a very rural village in Western PA that she and her husband raised my cousins on.

One night someone came in to rob that store. He used a shotgun, and shot my Godmother in the robbery.

Now you might think we'd become gun control advocates, right?

You'd be wrong.

One of her sons opened a gun store in Western PA that sold all kinds of guns, and did it very successfully. To this day my 80 year old aunt doesn't blame access to guns as the reason she was shot. She blames the person who decided to be a criminal. She was proud of her son, and my cousin, who owned a successful gun shop.


Gun owners are not the problem. Criminals are. And you cannot control criminals through gun control laws because criminals will do what they do and will not care about a law that says they cannot have a gun when they go victimize people.


So, my ancestors fled from Ireland - not very far removed ancestors I might add, I can speak with an Irirsh accent if I chose to because my Dad's father spoke with it - they came here to flee political oppression. And they armed themselves when they got here vowing to never let it happen again.


Now my mother's family is also part Irish. However - her step-father fled from Germany in the 1940s, came here, and eventually married my mother's mother. He saw what happened to his family who couldn't leave.

I have a very strong connection to oppression, and oppressive governments through my family, and they vowed they would never again experience that when they got here. They armed themselves to the teeth.


Don't be fooled by thinking we're special. Don't be fooled that America can't go through what my family went through. Germany and Ireland are modern nations, and they endured very oppressive governments.

All of Europe did during the 30's and 40's. And those caught behind the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Union suffered terribly for 50 years if they weren't part of the establishment and agreed to their political goals.


It's hubris to think history cannot repeat itself in "your country". My ancestral family never thought they'd be subjugated like they were, either. But they were. First in their homelands, and later when they arrived in America.

We are not so special to expect that something a bunch of dead guys 250 years ago write will be respected by a tyrant sometime in the future. Only gullible people think that way.

Consider the third Amendment -
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


The dead white guys who wrote that, and got it accepted by a majority of states, did so because that was how oppressive a tyrannical government could become. That was how oppressive a tyrannical government had become. And I can show you citation after citation where both British and American units forcibly occupied homes during the Revolution, killed and ate the livestock to survive the winters, and those homeowners got paultry recompense, if any at all.

Often they were told, "which side do you support?" And if you supported their side, you "gave" your resources to the cause. If you didn't, they were seized so you couldn't use them to "aid the enemy's cause".

That should give you some insight as to what was on their minds when they debated the language over the second Amendment.

mljdeckard
January 26, 2013, 03:24 AM
Re post #185,

I often point out to people that the process of confiscating arms from houses would compromise the entire Bill of Rights, INCLUDING the Third Amendment. Someone would have to occupy previously searched homes to prevent shuffling hidden guns around.

Ms_Dragon
January 26, 2013, 03:28 AM
@BullfrogKen.

THAT is officially "The Post of the Day!"

Alaska444
January 26, 2013, 03:29 AM
The American Revolution would have been lost if not for help from France.
Dear Timmy, the American revolution was indeed augmented by Polish, French and other European military help, but the majority of it was fought by farmers and other untrained military folks shooting behind trees in a new type of warfare.

The contribution of the French came quite late in the game. Placing an artificial constraint of no access to military allies denies the sacrifice of all those that brought the French to America in the first place. They would not have come if we were not worthy allies. Their main contribution was a naval blockade that hindered reinforcements.

Speculating that the revolution would have been lost without their help is simply that. The will of the people against their oppressive rulers would have pressed on even without the help of the French. In such, they shortened the war, but it was indeed the American's that won the war.

Israel hed off the Arabs in 1948. If you wish to diminish the importance of an armed population, go ahead. The Swiss have prevented invasions by this as well.

larryh1108
January 26, 2013, 03:36 AM
Tim, So far you've been civil and have not been troll-like. Thank you.

Why do you think our forefathers thought so highly of the right to bear arms that they made it #2, right after freedom of religion, speech and the press? Why didn't they make it #9 or #10 or add it later? Are you aware that the straw that broke the backs of the original colonists was the fact that the rulers in England wanted to disarm us so we couldn't resist their tyranny?

They specifically used the words "shall not be infringed" when it was written.

I do, however, support a few proposed gun control measures which I consider mild but effective,

That's infringement.

As far as magazine capacity. You ask why have 30? Well, many states already cap it at 10 rounds. A few weeks ago, New York state passed a law to make it 7. Why 7? Well, it's less than 10 I guess. The point is, once you have a specific number as a law in place, they can lower it at will until it is one. Paranoia? Ask the residents of New York State if it's a fact or paranoia. Give them an inch and in a few years it will be a mile.

A comparison? We have freedom of religion. Many religious zealots have anti-American participants which they have used to kill us time and again. Why doesn't America just ban any religion that has roots in anti-American nations? It's just a small restriction to protect Americans from terrorism. Just one religion, no big deal, right? Well, it's illegal under the Constitution of the United States, that's why. You'd be punishing millions of law abiding Americans for the crime of a few by deporting them or banning their religion. It's anti-American to do that just like it's anti-American to put any restrictions on the right to bear arms, or free speech or freedom of the press, etc.

Why? Because it is a right established when this country was formed to protect us from threats whether abroad or at home. It's not negotiable to people who are afraid of guns.

Vurtle
January 26, 2013, 03:36 AM
Timmy,

Be very afraid of your government and what it can do when bad leadership is present. I have served in the military. I was in a position that had a lot of influence and power over other troops. Over half of the guys that did the same job as me abused the power that they were given. Some did it to please those above them and most did it just because they could. These were men who were normal people when around others who were not their subordinates. But when they were around the people they were in charge of, they took advantage of them anyway they legally could. Physical abuse didn't happen because they knew there would be legal consequences. Verbal and emotional abuse ran rampant. It was even encouraged many times by our leadership. Many times, bragging afterwards would occur about how bad they tore down a troop.

I have close family who has been involved in interrogations with terrorist. The stories of how the suspected terrorist were treated makes me embarrassed sometimes to be called an American. These are people who have been trained to do this to people by our government. And they feel it was appropriate simply because our government told them it was okay. And they rationalize it because the "terrorists" weren't Americans.

This abuse of power doesn't just apply to military. Many of us have seen this done by bosses, little league coaches, law enforcement, preachers, politicians, etc etc. Do not trust your government to be good and honorable. There are some very good people who will not fall in line when our government wants to abuse us, but there are a lot of eager people who would love to be handed the reigns of power and abuse those below them. Look at what happened to law abiding citizens after hurricane Katrina. Many Americans have submitted to the idea that the government owns them and they will submit easily to tyranny.

Do not trust your government. Their is a very important reason the Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights. They experienced it first hand. If our right to bear arms is infringed (restricted even a little), they will keep squeezing the restrictions tighter until no one has the ability to resist the tyranny that comes after they have full power over the people. If our defense tools (also known as pistols, ar15s, etc) are removed, it will not be a matter of if, but when, they will do bad things to their own citizens.

Also, don't think of an AR15 as an assault weapon. It is a defense tool or defense weapon. Assault weapons seems to apply to weapons that are more commonly used to assault people with. Statistics do not show the AR15 to be something to be commonly used for assaulting people.

EBK
January 26, 2013, 03:38 AM
6. I don't know anyone in this forum. I believe, strongly, that most people who own guns are law-abiding citizens, and I have no reason to believe otherwise regarding people in this forum. Since I haven't even come close to making such an accusation, I'm a little bit surprised by your question.

my personal fear of them stems from about 10 years ago when I was carjacked; I had a gun stuck close to my head.



I would like to know, if you truly believe this what would be the point of limiting us? After all you freely admit you do not believe we are the problem.

As for your experience. This criminal broke the law when he used a firearm to carjack you correct? What makes you believe he will obey a law stating he can only have 10 shot magazines while doing so?

Sam Cade
January 26, 2013, 03:45 AM
Be very afraid of your government and what it can do when bad leadership is present.

My Lai is an excellent example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

easyg
January 26, 2013, 03:46 AM
3. As an American citizen, I reserve the right to give my opinion about any law or proposed law. That includes all issues of gun ownership.
Please don't confuse laws with Constitutional Rights.
If you allow politicians to infringe upon your Constitutional Rights by passing more laws then you are nothing more than a collaborator.


4. You live in a civilized society, not out in the woods. That gives everyone else who lives in said society the right to question what you do. It doesn't necessarily give them the right to enforce their will upon you, but it does give them the right to question.
Wrong!!!
The U.S. justice system was founded on the "presumption of innocence". No one has the "right" to question what any other citizen does without any EVIDENCE of criminal activity.
If you think that citizens spying upon their fellow citizens is just fine and dandy, then you have no clue as to what real freedom is all about.

5. My fear of firearms is immaterial to the discussion of what should be done about them.
Wrong!!!
Your fear of firearms has clearly affected your opinion of firearms, firearm owners, and the Second Amendment.
Because of your personal fears you cannot be impartial and unbiased in your opinions.
Only when you overcome your fear will you be able to see the issue as it truly is.


I wrote that to provide an honest evaluation of my own personal biases so that people could understand where I was coming from. It does not make me any more correct nor incorrect in my opinions on this issue.
Wrong again!
You think that your personal biases trump the U.S. Constitutional Bill of Rights....

Did your father or your mother teach you this notion?


6.....I believe, strongly, that most people who own guns are law-abiding citizens,
Why do you believe this?


7. No, I have not served in the military. My father and grandfather did. I have great respect for anyone who serves or has served. I thank them for their service and for protecting my freedom.
THIS is immaterial to the discussion.

And yes, I have served and am a veteran of this nation's wars.


, but my personal fear of them stems from about 10 years ago when I was carjacked; I had a gun stuck close to my head. I recognize that my fear is irrational. I try not to let it affect my judgment.
Instead of trying to infringe upon my Second Amendment Constitutional Rights, seek some resolution in your own life.

larryh1108
January 26, 2013, 03:46 AM
Also, didn't Saddam Hussein kill hundreds of thousands of citizens of Iraq because they were of a different tribe? Of all the genocides mentioned, how armed were the millions who were slaughtered? Maybe the present dictator didn't disarm them but the fact that they had little or no arms made the genocide easy. Maybe they were disarmed decades before. Maybe they didn't see a "need" for arms but they weren't armed, for whatever reason, and they were murdered by their leaders. History is full of unarmed or lightly armed people being slaughtered for thinking a different way. How many of them were armed when they were lined up around trenches they dug as their graves and then executed? This is as recent as the 1980s. I call that modern times.

Sam Cade
January 26, 2013, 04:02 AM
This is as recent as the 1980s. I call that modern times.

More recent than that in the Balkans.

An example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovas_massacre


As a related tidbit, what few civilian arms there were in the former Yugoslavia were registered with the local governments. The JNA sometimes provided this information to the Serbs so they could prioritize the murder of those individuals known to be armed.

goon
January 26, 2013, 04:04 AM
He has every right to be afraid of guns.

Some people are afraid of dogs.

I'm afraid of spiders.

He claims that's not his motivating factor in his journey of discovery.

And even if it was, it is not a legitimate reason for curtailing the rights of others.


And he's been pretty respectful.
It's not wrong to have a differing opinion. In fact, it is just as Constitutionally protected as the Second Amendment. How could I support one and ignore the other? That is hypocrisy that I will not stoop to.

Sad to say, but your background can have a huge impact on how you view guns. I have literally always been around them. I learned to shoot before I could tie my own shoes - literally, that is the truth. Of course I would see gun ownership as natural and essential. One of my roommates is not as liberal as I am, but he is very anti-gun. Where I see a tool for self defense, recreation, and and the preservation of liberty, he sees an implement that is used in the commission of crimes.
In his words, guns are used to kill "people who look like me," meaning African American men. He explained that the people he knew who had guns used them to commit crimes and intimidate others. He said that when someone in his family showed a gun, such as one of his uncles, everyone knew that it was time to stop arguing or it would soon get escalated. In contrast, when someone in my family brings out a gun, it is to show off a new scope or something like that.

There really are two different worlds in this nation. We have to find a way to reconcile them or we're all screwed.

Cactus Jack Arizona
January 26, 2013, 04:07 AM
Timmy,

The term "gun show loophole" is a felonious term used to scare people unfamiliar with firearms and gun shows. What they claim to be a "loophole" is actually 100% legal and totally within the law. In other words, there is NO such thing as a gun show loophole.

Another felonious term the anti-gunners use is "assault weapon". It too is used to instill fear into the hearts of those who are ignorant of firearms. The term "assault weapon" refers to any military rifle that has a selector switch which allows the shooter to select between single fire, burst fire, and fully automatic. Very few people own such firearms due to the expense. I am talking at least $5,000 and up for such a firearm. Plus there is a lot of extra red tape and expense in order to even obtain the right to buy such a firearm. These are known as Fully Automatic firearms and they are NOT easy to obtain. Such rifles would be the M-16 or various other weapons used by our military, and a TRUE AK-47/74 used by the military of various countries all over the world.

What this horrible administration is referring to is actually "military-styled" firearms. These are not the same as "assault weapons". They have no selector switch other than the fire and safety switch which is found on virtually every firearm in America. In other words, one trigger pull, one round fired. These firearms are known as Semi-Auto firearms. Such firearms would be the AR-15 and the "scary" AK"M"-47/74. Do the anti-gun politicians know this? Yes, they do. They count on the ignorance of their anti-gun constituents to demand that they carry their agenda through.

You said that guns scare you. Want to know how to get over that fear? Education. Most of what scares us can be overcome by education. Take a CCW class. Learn about firearms, firearm safety, how to load, unload, shoot, and to take care of any problems you might have with the firearm, such as a failure to feed or a failure to eject issue.

Now keep in mind that the old timers usually refer to semi-auto firearms as automatics. Do not confuse this with the term "Fully Automatic". The old timers are referring to the gun's ability to "automatically" load the next available round into the chamber after the original round is fired, and nothing more.

mnrivrat
January 26, 2013, 04:14 AM
I am going to avoid a lot of personal comment and ask that the OP (timmy4)read one government document to help him understand the 2nd . It is a document commisioned by the Senate and is the most comprehensive study done on the 2nd amendment. (you asked why bring up the 2nd)

You might not like the 2nd amendment ,but then you don't get to pick and choose Constitutionaly protected natural rights. By Law we are a Constitutional Republic, and it takes more the 51% to over ride Constitutional mandates.

Your welcome as an American to work at repealing the 2nd amendment, but bastardizing it to meet person comfort, is in fact Infringment.

Read this report :


The 1982 U.S. Senate Report on the 2nd Amendment
97th Congress
2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
--------

R E P O R T

OF THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 1982

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

----

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

88-618 O WASHINGTON : 1982

Vurtle
January 26, 2013, 04:14 AM
Timmy,

I too would like to acknowledge your respect and bravery for being willing to come to this forum and ask honest inquisitive questions. If you are near central texas and want some range experience, pm me and I would love to help out. If you are not near me, maybe someone with the heart of a teacher would be willing to take you to the range. One can never have enough skills and tools in their bag to defend their family and themselves.

I think this thread is good that you started it. Maybe someone who is on the fence about our way of thinking will read it and see how many times government has shown not to be trustworthy and why it is necessary to arm yourself.

Cactus Jack Arizona
January 26, 2013, 04:35 AM
As far as "high-cap" or "extended" magazines go, this too is disinformation also used to scare the anti-gun crowd. For instance, if you buy a:

Glock 17 9mm. It comes with two or three 17 round magazines. These magazines are NOT "high-cap" or "extended". They are Standard magazines. It's what the Glock 17 comes with.

CZ SP01 9mm. It comes with two 19 round magazines. Again, these are standard magazines and what the gun comes with.

AR-15. Although they do come with a 30 round magazine, this is standard for the AR-15.

AK"M"-47/74. A 30 round magazine is also standard.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter how many rounds a magazine holds. If it comes with the firearm, it's a standard magazine.

Yes, it is true that for a number of firearms, you can get extended magazines. However, the phrase that's all the rage today, asked by Hillary during her Benghazi testimony in front of the SFRC, "What difference does it make?" :rolleyes:

I hope this post as well as my earlier post helps you to understand the difference between truth and disinformation. If you are in the Ozarks, send me a pm. I'd be all to happy to take you to the range. You'll find all kinds of helpful gun enthusiasts there.

ol' scratch
January 26, 2013, 05:07 AM
Some of you have been downright rude in this thread. I don't condone it, but I understand that you feel beat up by the other side of the issue. Give this guy a break. He has been nothing but polite. As far as the historical perspective and the arguing concerning genocide, it really is leading nowhere. Those people are dead. You could argue for another eight pages about how the guns might have helped or how they didn't help. It is easy to revise history as our vision is 20/20 looking back. I was surprised, however; that no one brought up the USSR concerning genocide and gun control.

To Timmy. I use a standard capacity (30 round) AR 15 semi-automatic firearm for target shooting and self-protection. I use a 20 round magazine for competition. I use a 5 round magazine for hunting in my AR. If I am warding off an aggressor or several aggressors, I want to know that I have enough ammunition to defend myself. This is the exact reason most police use standard capacity magazines in rifles and pistols. I choose this particular firearm because it is accurate and can be maintained in my garage with minimal tools. I choose a 30 round magazine for that rifle because the police do not have an obligation to protect us. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html In case of civil unrest or a temporary breakdown of law and order, I want a standard capacity magazine for the firearm I choose to ward off individuals who might do harm to me or my family. In recent history, these scenarios have played out. Semi-automatic firearms were used to ward of large groups of attackers during the LA riots and during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Understand that I am versed in firearms and know quite well what I need for my particular location. The vast majority of firearms owners who use these rifles use them responsibly. According to a recent NY Times article I read, there have been between 3.3 and 3.5 million AR 15 rifles produced and purchased by civilians. That is only from 1986 to 2009. The AR in particular has been available to the public since 1963. I would estimate the number of standard capacity magazines to be at least 40 million for AR’s if not more. That is not even including the other semi-automatic firearms and magazines their magazines. Standard capacity, or as the media and politicians have started calling them hi capacity magazines are nothing new. They have been around for 100 years. I myself have a WWII Browning Hi Power with a 13 round magazine.

As to the well intentioned politicians trying to protect us. They won't even take the time to learn what features on a firearm are called, but yet they are screaming for a ban. I am a little jaded by politicians at the moment. They only want to pad their political careers. That is the only reason I can think of that they intentionally pass misinformation on to reporters and the well-intended. It has been comical the last couple of weeks.

As far as reasonable restrictions. I think they are in place. We are prohibited from owning rocket launchers, missiles, and nuclear weapons. Machine guns are heavily restricted. We have to submit to a background check to purchase firearms. Felons and the mentally ill are not allowed to have firearms. There are laws on the books to prosecute straw purchasers, even if they only seem to get the miniumum sentences. A ban on a semi-automatic or its "feeding device" aimed at a law abiding citizen is not a reasonable restriction. You mention what the police say in Baltimore. There are plenty of other police chiefs in other states and municipalities who have said they will not enforce the law and are defending these firearms- "high capacity" magazines and all.

RetiredUSNChief
January 26, 2013, 06:44 AM
I don't have much time to spend on this thread just now and, in fact, haven't been able to work my way through all the pages just yet.

However, the first page showed promise...even though the last comment posted before this would indicate that somewhere things took a turn for the rude.

timmy4, I would like to address some of your questions myself later, perhaps with some more recent and "relevant" historical examples for you with respect to many of your questions.

Bear with me though...I've got a weekend full of family activities and work ahead of me in the meantime.

:)

bikerdoc
January 26, 2013, 07:57 AM
Timmy,
I find you to be a bright, articulate, polite, young man. Probably urban, well educated and have a good job.
Congrats! Ask yourself, How did you get to be who you are?
I didn't just happen and it was not luck.
It was bought with and paid for by the blood and sacrifice of good men with guns. They laid the foundation for our great country. As we expanded and immigrants came they assimilated and joined the democratic experiment. They had children who continued contributed, some of whom had to take up arms to defend the country at various times and some paid the ultimate price.
Yes Tim, freedom is not free.
My challenge to you is to examine your fears ( you realize fear of an inanimate object is irrational) study history, hang around here and absorb the mind set, and if your ever in VA/NC border area I will take you out and teach you shoot.

76shuvlinoff
January 26, 2013, 07:57 AM
but my personal fear of them stems from about 10 years ago when I was carjacked; I had a gun stuck close to my head. I recognize that my fear is irrational. I try not to let it affect my judgment.

I was 21 (1981) walking across a dark parking lot when this guy pulled up asking directions. Suddenly I was looking into a nickle plated revolver. I assume at best I was going to get robbed but a crowd came around a corner and the guy took off.

This was my turning point, you apparently chose to avoid firearms. I chose to not be defenseless again. I don't put myself in bad situations if I can avoid it, my head is on a swivel, I carry. Paranoid? Since I am at least intelligent enough to recognize that life is not a dress rehearsal and this is not Utopia... I call it prepared.

The 2nd amendment was written to give citizens the opportunity to be prepared in the event of tyranny but without it we would not have the option to be armed as equally as the intruders in home and personal defense either.

meanmrmustard
January 26, 2013, 08:03 AM
This will be my last post of the night, guys. I need to go to bed. I will try to respond more in the morning.

1. I don't expect anyone to defend themselves to me. I've asked some questions, and some people were kind enough to answer. I make no demands.
2. I'm happy to answer your questions. Here goes:
3. As an American citizen, I reserve the right to give my opinion about any law or proposed law. That includes all issues of gun ownership.
4. You live in a civilized society, not out in the woods. That gives everyone else who lives in said society the right to question what you do. It doesn't necessarily give them the right to enforce their will upon you, but it does give them the right to question.
5. My fear of firearms is immaterial to the discussion of what should be done about them. I wrote that to provide an honest evaluation of my own personal biases so that people could understand where I was coming from. It does not make me any more correct nor incorrect in my opinions on this issue.
6. I don't know anyone in this forum. I believe, strongly, that most people who own guns are law-abiding citizens, and I have no reason to believe otherwise regarding people in this forum. Since I haven't even come close to making such an accusation, I'm a little bit surprised by your question.
7. No, I have not served in the military. My father and grandfather did. I have great respect for anyone who serves or has served. I thank them for their service and for protecting my freedom.
8. I don't know what you mean by life experiences. Since you asked, I can tell you that I have been to firing ranges and to gun shows. I have close friends who own guns. I never have, but my personal fear of them stems from about 10 years ago when I was carjacked; I had a gun stuck close to my head. I recognize that my fear is irrational. I try not to let it affect my judgment.

Hope that answers all of your questions. Good night, everyone!
1. Alright.
2. Thank you.
3. That's because you have the 2A to protect the 1A that you're fond of using here.
4. No, it doesn't, and no you don't. There's amendments that protect that too.
5. Your fear provides a basis for your discussion, much of which has thus far been unintelligible fallacy. You're thinking with your fears, and speaking from them.
6. Criminals can and do own firearms. You should, too. It helps us law abiding owners to be one member stronger than the bad guys. That's including unlawful folks AND this government.
7. Nice of you.
8. Hard to get carjacked when there is an equally "scary gun" pointing into the face of your attacker. You make yourself a victim being unarmed to some degree. Times have changed, people are desperate. Protect your neck, son!

kmrcstintn
January 26, 2013, 08:14 AM
Quote:
nuclear suitcase bomb

Poor argument since it is not a personal firearm.


funny thing is that is EXACTLY how a liberal I work with and myself ended our gun control 'debating'; he escalated the level of 'reasonable' amount of firearm & ammo immediately to the 'unreasonable' level of nuclear weapons...

my final input was that human society was already 'nuclear' in nature and that the ONLY way to deter evil was to be equal in strength to them on EVERY level...whether personal firearm or international nuclear deterrance; of course he still didn't understand why I wouldn't want to give up my 'assault rifle' and 'high capacity magazines' so I simply asked him if the military surplus nuclear device he ordered had arrived yet as a light humor point and we went our separate ways...

2nd 41
January 26, 2013, 08:57 AM
I don't know what you mean by life experiences. Since you asked, I can tell you that I have been to firing ranges and to gun shows. I have close friends who own guns. I never have, but my personal fear of them stems from about 10 years ago when I was carjacked; I had a gun stuck close to my head. I recognize that my fear is irrational. I try not to let it affect my judgment.

Hope that answers all of your questions. Good night, everyone!
I was held up at gun point in 1980. Guy got caught. My life was threatened if I testified. I testified...he got 10 years probation instead of 5 years mandatory(Phila, Pa). I never considered owning a gun until then...and now. I'm glad you did not get hurt from the Car-Jack. I was fortunate not to get shot during the robbery. I'm afraid of guns also...the guns that junkies use to harm/rob us.

The Teacher
January 26, 2013, 09:34 AM
Yes. The Armenians in Turkey were armed, as were the Ukrainians in the 1920s. I believe the Cambodian villagers slaughtered by Pol Pot were fairly well armed as well.

Private arms are irrelevant to genocide.

The Ukrainians, along with the rest of what at the time was considered Russia and soon to be Soviet Union, started losing their access to arms as early as 1918. The holodomor (Ukrainian Famine) began in 1932.

Some highlights:

March 21, 1918 - The "Petrograd Extraordinary Commission" states that without proper authorization of the "Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies" individuals are banned from storing weapons, ammunition and explosives.

December 10, 1918 - The "Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR" issues a decree on the surrender of weapons. According to the decree public and civil institutions, as well as citizens, were required to surrender their existing rifles, machine guns, and revolvers of all systems, as well as ammunition. Permission to possess firearms issued before the publication of the decree was now void. In order to encourage citizen participation in the confiscation of weapons, monetary compensation from the commissariat for military affairs was given to citizens who turned in weapons, for a serviceable rifle: 600 rubles, for defective: from 100 to 500 rubles. For each gun remuneration doubled. Possession of a firearm resulted in 6 months of jail time and eventually 3 months of hard labor and 300 rubles.

1920's - A few hunting exceptions were made culminating in 1923 with the "Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR" adopting a new resolution on hunting, according to which a certificate could be (not required to be) issued by the hunting authorities of the "People's Commissariat of Agriculture" to citizens who have reached the age of majority. The NKVD carried out the registration of hunting weapons (smoothbore shotguns at this time) and considerations for hunting ammunition.

Also, as far as I know in the Ottoman Empire:

-In 1910, the manufacture and importation of firearms without government permission, as well as carrying weapons or ammunition without permission was forbidden.

-In 1915, during World War I the Armenian areas of the Ottoman empire were ordered to surrender quotas of firearms, and when they couldn't meet their ever-increasing quotas the Turks began confiscations of and executions for stockpiled weapons. Some small groups of Armenians in the southern part of what was the Ottoman empire at the time did "head to the hills" with their weapons and put up a fight. They staved off the Turks and were eventually rescued by the Brits and the French

Patrice
January 26, 2013, 10:23 AM
Hhmmm....I tried to respond to this thread last night, but it was locked????

206 posts (now 207) on a trolling anti-constitutionalist's thread???

With re: to the thread's topic...why keep bring up the 2nd Amendment....The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

For me, the reason why so many of us keep bringing it up need not be explained or persuaded further. When I was employed by the Federal government, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America...against all enemies...both foreign and domestic. While I am no longer employed by the Federal government, my oath is still binding & I am honor bound to keep my sworn promise.

May Providence bless the United States of America, and the Constitution for which it stands.--Patrice

Al Thompson
January 26, 2013, 10:30 AM
And I'm going to lock it again and give Timmy time to catch up. :)

As before, PM one of us to unlock it, Timmy.

4v50 Gary
January 26, 2013, 12:05 PM
Timmy4 - you wrote that we live in a civilized society. For the most part we do. However, there is an ever growing class who respect no law, the rights of others, the teachings of any religion. You've met one at gunpoint. I have seen them at the King Riots where folks no have never committed a crime went mad, destroyed private property, attacked others and looted stores. I know you didn't attend public school in New York city where roll down doors partition the schools into thirds to prevent riots from spreading. have you ever gone shopping on Black Friday and seen the mob rushing a store to buy some item? The thin veneer of civilization gave way in all those incidents.

ol' scratch
January 26, 2013, 02:51 PM
Timmy mentioned how guns were supplied to the rebels in Syria by the US. According to most of the sources I have read, the US is at least not suppling them directly. While I am not promoting an uprising of US citizens to overthrow the government, it could be argued that firearms would be effective if such an uprising was needed. If firearms were no longer effective on the modern battlefield, why do we still use them? One of the problems for the rebels has been securing weapons to fight their war against the tyranical government. They have been almost completely reliant on outside governments to supply their weapons. There haven't been enough guns, or enough ammunition. He also mentions that in a modern society, a resident has no chance of fight against a tyranical government with firearms. They are fighting and gaining ground in Syria and their primary weapon is a firearm. I will have to respectively disagree with you on this point, but I am open to your thoughts.

Gaiudo
January 26, 2013, 03:09 PM
we live in a civilized society

Really? Been to South Detroit lately? The MacArthur Park area of LA? New Orleans?

John3921
January 26, 2013, 04:17 PM
I have to say, being a long time lurker and very infrequent poster on THR, the well reasoned responses and civil discourse on this thread is a pleasure to read through. I appreciate the references to various papers and legislation that have been presented. There is a lot of good information presented here that will help when trying to discuss the issues with my lib friends on other boards. Thanks all.

Baba Louie
January 26, 2013, 04:43 PM
For Tim, lurkers and newbies, the old "I'm an Anti with Questions" thread from 2003 that is Soooo worth a read. Around a hundred posts or so with maybe 12 that stand out and shine (Trisha's being one of my favorites).

Many parallels here w/ Tim's thread (sorry I can't call ya timmy, reminds me too much of SouthPark or something. TIM EH)

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-27373.html

JRH6856
January 26, 2013, 04:59 PM
A modest proposal to apply to the 1st Amendment, regulations equivalent to those proposed for the 2nd


1 The manufacture, importation, transfer and use of All high speed presses is hereby banned. In addition, specific presses to be listed later are banned.

2. No publication may contain more than 10 pages. No sentence, either spoken or in print, may contain more than ten words or words of more than two syllables (oops).

3. All cameras, smart phones, digital tablets and personal computers must be registered with the govt. within 90 days.

4. No one, other than government officials, may access the internet as speeds higher than 56kbs (AKA a "dial-up" connection).

5. Everyone residing in or entering the USA will be voiceprinted, said voice print to be maintained in a national data base so that a person uttering offensive speech may be easily identified. Anyone subsequently found without a voiceprint on file will have their vocal cords removed and forever loose their right to speak.

6. Any property, private or public, may be designated as no speech zones. Anyone entering such zones will have their mouths duct-taped to prevent disallowed speech.

7, Conversation between private individuals is not allowed. All conversation must take place in a government licensed location where the conversation can be monitored and recorded. All conversation must be face-to-face after presentation of proper ID verified by voiceprint analysis. No words or pictures may be exchanged electronically or by mail.

8. Religious practices shall be limited to specified places of worship (list of approved places to follow). No religious services may be held in a facility that does not have an exterior appearance common to approved places of worship.

meanmrmustard
January 26, 2013, 05:11 PM
A modest proposal to apply to the 1st Amendment, regulations equivalent to those proposed for the 2nd


1 The manufacture, importation, transfer and use of All high speed presses is hereby banned. In addition, specific presses to be listed later are banned.

2. No publication may contain more than 10 pages. No sentence, either spoken or in print, may contain more than ten words or words of more than two syllables (oops).

3. All cameras, smart phones, digital tablets and personal computers must be registered with the govt. within 90 days.

4. No one, other than government officials, may access the internet as speeds higher than 56kbs (AKA a "dial-up" connection).

5. Everyone residing in or entering the USA will be voiceprinted, said voice print to be maintained in a national data base so that a person uttering offensive speech may be easily identified. Anyone subsequently found without a voiceprint on file will have their vocal cords removed and forever loose their right to speak.

6. Any property, private or public, may be designated as no speech zones. Anyone entering such zones will have their mouths duct-taped to prevent disallowed speech.

7, Conversation between private individuals is not allowed. All conversation must take place in a government licensed location where the conversation can be monitored and recorded. All conversation must be face-to-face after presentation of proper ID verified by voiceprint analysis. No words or pictures may be exchanged electronically or by mail.

8. Religious practices shall be limited to specified places of worship (list of approved places to follow). No religious services may be held in a facility that does not have an exterior appearance common to approved places of worship.
Holy sheep lovin'.

Good post. I'd like to see how an anti will dissect this, as I'm sure that the 1st will stay skirted around.

Those that love that 1st must remember that the 2nd is the one with teeth that protects all others.

aeriedad
January 26, 2013, 05:12 PM
Glad you guys chose to open up this thread again. I want to write first that I appreciate the good will and discussion here. I was hoping to find good discussion and debate in this forum, and it appears that I have. Many of you are quite knowledgeable on these issues. I'm only sorry I can't respond to every post- there's just been too many.

I'm glad you started this thread, and I wish to commend you for your forthright and honest desire to discuss an important issue like an adult. People can disagree without engaging in childish, ad hominem attacks or imputing hostile motives to the opposition. Too often, however, too many of us are too happy to argue in a mean spirit. Thanks for acting like a grown-up here, and welcome to THR.

I also want to say that I am not a troll, and not a shill looking to "plant rhetoric" as Missileman accused me of. I certainly have my own point of views, and many of them probably disagree with many of yours. But there's no secret plot here. And if there was one, I don't think it would work. You guys don't strike me as stupid or easily persuaded.

Most of us don't think you're here to "plant rhetoric." We would probably all get more out of this discussion if you continue to ignore posts such as Missleman's, especially since there are already too many posts for you to reply to them all anyway. In fact, I started reading this thread within an hour of your first post last night, and it was all I could do just to catch up and read everything. (I try not to post in a thread unless I've read all--or nearly all--previous replies.) I had a reply ready last night, but when I clicked "Submit" the thread had been temporarily locked. :mad:

That being said: it strikes me that about 80% of the discussion in this thread has been devoted to the question of a tyranny, and how gun restrictions would either help lead to a tyranny or prevent you as private citizens from combating a tyranny or both. People have brought up Nazi Germany, the Warsaw Ghetto, slavery, and other examples.

Why do we vigorously defend the 2nd Amendment? Do we think we will need semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines to resist a tyrannical government in our lifetimes? No, not really. The same way I don't think my house will be targeted for home invasion tonight...but I'm locking the doors and setting the security alarm anyway, just in case. Being prepared for bad things tends to deter those who would commit them. Even so, bad things do happen, and the consequences are always greater for the unprepared.

I want to emphasize that, among my friends who support forms of gun control, this subject never comes up except as a matter of derision towards you folks. It makes liberals and independents believe that you guys are extremist and paranoid. I hope I'm not insulting anyone, but I'm trying to be honest here. In terms of trying to convince people like me, you are much more convincing when you argue the ineffectiveness of the proposals. Even if I disagree with some of those arguments as well, they are rational arguments that people on the "other side" can wrap their heads around.

I do not take such comments as an offense, though they do reflect a basic misunderstanding of world-views. Reasonable people do not want civil war, but many would choose that over slavery (Ironic, isn't it?). Most of us don't expect it to ever come to that, but as many others have posted already in this thread, an unarmed citizenry is an invitation to dictators. It doesn't matter whether the government that takes our arms is a dictatorship, democracy or a republic. At that point a dictatorship will be no more than a generation away.

IMO, liberals and independents who consider such thinking to be paranoid have an incomplete understanding of Natural Law. Start here (http://jim.com/rights.html), then maybe pick something by Mark Levin. Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America (http://www.amazon.com/Ameritopia-Unmaking-Mark-R-Levin/dp/1439173273/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359233629&sr=8-1&keywords=mark+levin) is excellent.

I want a better life for my children and grandchildren, and allowing the erosion of our right to keep and bear arms now could rob them of that chance.

As for myself, I don't mind discussing the tyranny issue, but a warning: if my knowledge of guns is limited, my knowledge of history is pretty damn good. And I'm going to take to task anyone who makes false claims. Let me make three statements:

1. In modern history, no dictatorship has ever seized guns from private citizens as a means to impose the dictatorship- in the rare cases when it happened, it was usually an afterthought, and the seizure of those guns had no effect on the imposition of the dictatorship.
2. In modern history, there has never been a "slippery slope", in which modest gun laws led to seizure of all guns which led to a dictatorship.
3. In modern history, there has never been a situation where private ownership of guns was able to fight off a dictatorship.

I challenge any of you to contradict these points with real examples. If you can, I will of course change my mind, and I will come in here and acknowledge it. But I don't believe you can.

Several others have posted excellent responses to these points already. Not much point in repeating them. I would only like to add that, throughout history, some people have sought to control others, while most have no such desire. Most folks who would limit the 2nd Amendment are of the former, while most defenders of the 2nd Amendment are of the latter.

mljdeckard
January 26, 2013, 05:13 PM
I agree with posts 214 and 215. I have made these arguments for years, but I have never worded them this well.

Mikhail Weiss
January 26, 2013, 05:20 PM
timmy4:

Thanks for your conversation. No doubt our points of view overlap in many, many areas, but on matters of gun control, likely not at all. I'm presently curious about this, however:


4. You live in a civilized society...

What makes you think it's civilized? Put another way, how do you define a civilized society?

Who or what preserves that civilized society?

How thin is the veneer of civilized society? Put another way, does what you define as a civilized society exist in all places all the time?

miller.lyte
January 26, 2013, 05:21 PM
Interesting to see that no one has yet brought up the classic Stanford Prison or Milgram experiments yet.

Baba Louie
January 26, 2013, 05:26 PM
Interesting to see that no one has yet brought up the classic Stanford Prison or Milgram experiments yet. You just now did, so expand for the younguns who know not, please. Or link for them. Give me a white lab coat and a clipboard and I'll rule the weak minded I tell you! ;)

Derry 1946
January 26, 2013, 05:27 PM
Welcome to the forum. The members possess a wealth of technical knowledge about firearms and non-firearm weapons, and share very detailed expertise quite generously. There are also numerous deep scholars of the law and history of the Second Amendment and related laws. Matching wits with them will be a worthy and enlightening challenge.

Derry 1946
January 26, 2013, 05:45 PM
Really? Been to South Detroit lately? The MacArthur Park area of LA? New Orleans?

It's true that civilization broke down in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Looters roamed freely. The police largely disbanded and the command structure collapsed. It was lawless. Then there was martial law. Similar things happened in NYC when the power grid failed. When this happens, I prefer to have some firearms to repel marauders. This is not a theoretical hazard. After Katrina, there were also a lot of hungry dogs trying to survive. I would hate to have to shoot a dog, but the safety of my wife and kids would come first. Anyone who has not done so should check out a documentary or other educational source on the aftermath of Katrina.

Leanwolf
January 26, 2013, 05:46 PM
TIMMY 4 - "I've never really thought about it too much. I believe in free speech, in general, but there are reasonable limitations (Obviously, the famous one of shouting "fire" in a theater is the best example of a limitation.) All of the Bill of Rights have limitations."

With that statement which is used constantly by the anti-Second Amendment crowd, you contradict and destroy your own argument.

Yes, there are laws in the States that forbid shouting "FIRE!" in a "crowded theater." (Unless there actually is a fire.) If somone does so, he can be prosecuted for breaking the law.

But, just because someone might shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, there are no preventative measures taken against the theatre attendees before they walk into the theatre, such as cutting out the tongues of all attendees, or sewing their lips together to prevent someone from shouting "FIRE!" in the crowded theatre.

Yet you and your anti-Second Amendment crowd use that absurd "Shout 'fire!' in a crowded theatre" argument to demand PREVENTATIVE, PUNISHING laws against honest, law abiding gun owners because one of them MIGHT use his firearm to commit an unlawful act in the future.

You demand punishment before a law is broken regarding firearms owners, but only demand punishment after somone has abused his First Amendment Right by shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre.

That is entirely contradictory and illogical. If punishment is to be dealt out on the subjunctive assumption of possible future lawbreaking, then it much be dealt out equally. Afterall, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, isn't it?

L.W.

Warp
January 26, 2013, 06:01 PM
Our society is only civilized because men with guns keep it that way.

And giving only one particular group or segment those guns would change it.



And yes, as for the "FIRE in a crowded theater"...that isn't used as an excuse to gag everybody that enters a movie theater. That is an example of punishing somebody for abusing their rights. Gun control doesn't do that. Gun control presume guilt and punishes everybody because of what a small number might do

Leanwolf
January 26, 2013, 06:03 PM
Timmy 4, here is a link to a long essay written by the famous playwright, screenwriter, and novelist, David Mamet. He explains in detail, not only what Obama and his ilk are trying to really accomplish with their assault on the Second Amendment Right of gun owners, but why none of the "new laws" proposed will do anything other than punish honest citizens for the crime of being honest.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html

Take a look. You might be enlightened.

L.W.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 06:04 PM
Some excellent posts here. With your forgiveness, because there are so many in both threads to respond to, I'm going to focus on the gun magazine thread for the time being- that will keep me busy enough. I will try to return to this thread later on.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 06:12 PM
Well unfortunately, that other thread remains closed. So let me return to some of the issues raised here.

I'm going to reiterate that I reject all arguments regarding either the "slippery slope" or the threat of a tyrannical government. I am receptive to arguments about effectiveness of various gun control measures.

Furthermore, it is my very strong judgment that if those on "your side" promote the "slippery slope" or "tyrannical govt." arguments too strongly, you are going to lose. The public at large not only does not see eye to eye with you on this, they will characterize you as extremist and isolate you politically, as they are already doing. Although many of you don't believe this, I am not what you would normally call an "anti" or "gun grabber." (In fact, I resent the use of the latter term because I have no desire to grab anyone's guns.) I am, I believe, a middle of the road person on these issues. I CAN be convinced, with good argument, to accept some of your POVs, but that argument needs to be based on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the proposals, and not on this other stuff.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 06:17 PM
Using the "effectiveness" reasoning, I cannot in good conscience go along with Senator Feinstein's proposal to ban certain semi-automatic weapons. Although unlike most of you I am no expert on these weapons, one thing is very clear to me: in terms of their possible threat to public safety, there is no way for me to distinguish between one semi-automatic weapon vs. another. So far as I can tell, the ones being made illegal are the "scariest looking" ones. To me, what a gun looks like is an illogical reason to make it illegal.

Warp
January 26, 2013, 06:19 PM
You can reject the argument all you want, but the FACT is that that is the reason, intent, and purpose behind the Second Amendment.

If you want to reject that fact I suggest you get enough people together to amend the Constitution.

buckhorn_cortez
January 26, 2013, 06:20 PM
1. In modern history, no dictatorship has ever seized guns from private citizens as a means to impose the dictatorship- in the rare cases when it happened, it was usually an afterthought, and the seizure of those guns had no effect on the imposition of the dictatorship.

How "modern" is modern history? Does history start the day you were born, or can we go back further than that?

2. In modern history, there has never been a "slippery slope", in which modest gun laws led to seizure of all guns which led to a dictatorship.

"Modest"? Everything starts as being a "reasonable gun law." It soon metasticizes into -

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. … They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
- Benito Mussolini, address to the Italian Senate, 1931

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
- Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6 1938

“I did not join the resistance movement to kill people, to kill the nation. Look at me now. Am I a savage person? My conscience is clear.”
- Pol Pot

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. Between 1975 and 1973, 2,035,000 “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

During the short four years of its rule in Cambodia, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge government murdered over 31 percent of the entire Cambodian population.


“Armas para que? (“Guns, for what?”)”
A response to Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba.
- Fidel Castro


3. In modern history, there has never been a situation where private ownership of guns was able to fight off a dictatorship.

Then how do you explain the rebels overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi?

Franciso Franco used people armed with privately owned weapons as part of the Nationalists war against the Popular Front prior to receiving aid from Italy and Germany.

Soviet 40th Army against the mujahideens in Afghanistan. Soviets use every conceivable modern weapon - excluding nuclear weapons - and lost to a multi-national insurgent group armed mainly with WWI and WWII rifles supplemented later in the conflict with some surface-to-air missiles, and shoulder-launched grenades provided by sympathetic democratic governments.

And you still want to say that gun ownership should be limited? Here's proof that even military level weapons have a place with civilians. How would you propose the Afghanis liberate themselves otherwise? Vote the Russians out of Afghanistan?

I challenge any of you to contradict these points with real examples. If you can, I will of course change my mind, and I will come in here and acknowledge it. But I don't believe you can.

Okay - I just did exactly that - now what?

You're going to claim that this type of thing could never happen in the "civilized United States"? It already has - 1776. Are you going to claim the English weren't "civilized"?

As for your earlier "suitcase nuclear weapon" canard - very poor argument. At the time the Framers of the Constitution wrote the document - including the 2nd Amendment - the rebel army and navy (soon to be the Army and Navy of the United States) possessed many weapons of war that were far outside of the ownership of individual citizens. The people who wrote the 2nd Amendment knew EXACTLY what they were doing and, more importantly, WHY.

If you are a student of history, you will know that soon after the US Constitution was written, the new President commissioned a naval vessel that no citizen could own. You may have heard of it - it's called the "USS Constitution" and it is still a commissioned vessel in the United States Navy.

So please, put the ideas about the Framers of the Constitution had no idea about the level of sophisitication of modern weapons type arguments away. The people who wrote the Constitution knew exactly what they were writing and why - they wanted the government to be restrained by the people - including the use of force if required, and they wanted to make sure the citizens had the tools to do that.

You seem to be nice - but, extremely naive about guns, gun control, and especially politics.

Warp
January 26, 2013, 06:21 PM
Using the "effectiveness" reasoning, I cannot in good conscience go along with Senator Feinstein's proposal to ban certain semi-automatic weapons. Although unlike most of you I am no expert on these weapons, one thing is very clear to me: in terms of their possible threat to public safety, there is no way for me to distinguish between one semi-automatic weapon vs. another. So far as I can tell, the ones being made illegal are the "scariest looking" ones. To me, what a gun looks like is an illogical reason to make it illegal.

Good. That's what they are doing.

Look up what a "barrel shroud" is sometime, if you are interested. All a barrel shroud is, is something that covers the barrel so that, while you are shooting a number of rounds, which is common on the range, you are less likely to burn yourself on the hot barrel.

Simply running one qualification target at an Appleseed shoot can have a barrel burn-you-hot.

Solo
January 26, 2013, 06:24 PM
But what about pistol grips that allow shooters to fire from the hip and spray bullets into large crowds at a rapid pace, or collapsible stocks that let you fold an assault weapon into a purse?

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 06:26 PM
You can reject the argument all you want, but the FACT is that that is the reason, intent, and purpose behind the Second Amendment.

If you want to reject that fact I suggest you get enough people together to amend the Constitution.
I have no desire to change the 2nd Amendment. I believe in the 2nd Amendment.

Derek Zeanah
January 26, 2013, 06:28 PM
I have no desire to change the 2nd Amendment. I believe in the 2nd Amendment.
Really? I've been reading most of the comments in your threads here, and it seems to me you don't.

What do you think the 2nd Amendment is for, and do you think it's still valid in the original sense?

My guess is your understanding is off from most people's here.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 06:29 PM
How "modern" is modern history? Does history start the day you were born, or can we go back further than that?

.

"Modest"? Everything starts as being a "reasonable gun law." It soon metasticizes into -

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. … They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
- Benito Mussolini, address to the Italian Senate, 1931

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
- Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6 1938

“I did not join the resistance movement to kill people, to kill the nation. Look at me now. Am I a savage person? My conscience is clear.”
- Pol Pot

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. Between 1975 and 1973, 2,035,000 “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

During the short four years of its rule in Cambodia, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge government murdered over 31 percent of the entire Cambodian population.


“Armas para que? (“Guns, for what?”)”
A response to Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba.
- Fidel Castro




Then how do you explain the rebels overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi?

Franciso Franco used people armed with privately owned weapons as part of the Nationalists war against the Popular Front prior to receiving aid from Italy and Germany.

Soviet 40th Army against the mujahideens in Afghanistan. Soviets use every conceivable modern weapon - excluding nuclear weapons - and lost to a multi-national insurgent group armed mainly with WWI and WWII rifles supplemented later in the conflict with some surface-to-air missiles, and shoulder-launched grenades provided by sympathetic democratic governments.

And you still want to say that gun ownership should be limited? Here's proof that even military level weapons have a place with civilians. How would you propose the Afghanis liberate themselves otherwise? Vote the Russians out of Afghanistan?



Okay - I just did exactly that - now what?

You're going to claim that this type of thing could never happen in the "civilized United States"? It already has - 1776. Are you going to claim the English weren't "civilized"?

You seem to be nice - but, extremely naive about guns, gun control, and especially politics.
Your own post proves you wrong. You note that the Soviet Union made gun control effective in 1929. But the mass collectivization efforts you discuss, which caused the death of millions (mostly in the Ukraine) started around 1924, long before these areas were disarmed. And the bulk of the Soviet population was never disarmed, especially in central Russia and around Moscow- yet this didn't prevent the purges from 1936-1939.

The rest of your post is just as incorrect, sorry.

Larry Ashcraft
January 26, 2013, 06:31 PM
Gun control advocates, by and large, seem to believe that the government seeks gun control for the safety of the citizens.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The government cares not one whit about your safety. To them you're just a vote, and one that could go either way anyway.

Gun control is just a grab for power, nothing more. And this current administration is especially power hungry.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 06:32 PM
Really? I've been reading most of the comments in your threads here, and it seems to me you don't.

What do you think the 2nd Amendment is for, and do you think it's still valid in the original sense?

My guess is your understanding is off from most people's here.
It doesn't matter what I think it's for. That's the point that many of you keep missing. The only thing that matters is whether or not I believe in what's written. I do. I do not desire to infringe on your right to bear arms.

As I have stated, I am in favor of two specific gun control measures: banning high capacity gun magazines, and forcing all sales or transfers of firearms to go through background checks for the proposed buyer so as to enforce existing laws that make it illegal for convicted felons to purchase them. I do not believe that either of these measures infringe upon your right to bear arms.

aeriedad
January 26, 2013, 06:39 PM
I'm going to reiterate that I reject all arguments regarding either the "slippery slope" or the threat of a tyrannical government. I am receptive to arguments about effectiveness of various gun control measures.

I CAN be convinced, with good argument, to accept some of your POVs, but that argument needs to be based on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the proposals, and not on this other stuff.

"This other stuff" is the basis for our rights. The 2nd Amendment was written by people who understood the works of John Locke. Arguments about the effectiveness of various gun control measures have no basis in rights. Natural Rights.

If we are to only talk about what is effective, who gets to decide what is effective? The people who want to control other people, or the people who want to live free? The 2nd Amendment does not grant us a right to keep and bear arms, but merely declares that a Natural Right we already possess will not be infringed. It's a restriction on government, not on the people.

But to the matter of effectiveness, consider that in 2011 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11), there were 12,664 people slain in the United States. The top weapons of choice were: handguns (6,620), knives (1,694) and fists or feet (728). Although the many politicians want to ban rifles with certain “military-style” features, rifles of every type were used in just 323 homicides.

Now so-called "assault weapons" are a subset of the rifle category. And note that these are all homicides, some of which may be in self-defense. Yes, an AR-15 may be used to commit a lawful (albeit, tragic) self-defense homicide, and the FBI records it as a rifle homicide. Are we going to staple cushions to everyone's fists and feet to prevent 728 homicides? Or do we just ban ARs because they look evil?

EBK
January 26, 2013, 06:42 PM
TIMMY4 Please answer this question.


6. I don't know anyone in this forum. I believe, strongly, that most people who own guns are law-abiding citizens, and I have no reason to believe otherwise regarding people in this forum. Since I haven't even come close to making such an accusation, I'm a little bit surprised by your question.

my personal fear of them stems from about 10 years ago when I was carjacked; I had a gun stuck close to my head.



I would like to know, if you truly believe this what would be the point of limiting us? After all you freely admit you do not believe we are the problem.

As for your experience. This criminal broke the law when he used a firearm to carjack you correct? What makes you believe he will obey a law stating he can only have 10 shot magazines while doing so?

browneu
January 26, 2013, 06:43 PM
Timney

Thirty minutes of range time will greatly increase your understanding of the topic more than reading the internet.

It amazes me that people who have no experience in firearms are willing to dictate to me what I need and don't need. Or in your position try to come up with solutions without the fundamental knowledge of shooting.

Why don't you focus on the person instead of the object. What's driving these people to murder? What help can these people receive?


Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

JN01
January 26, 2013, 06:47 PM
Great question! Now we get to the heart of the matter. You believe that government tries to control your firearms because they want to control YOU. I believe that government tries to regulate, not control your firearms because they honestly believe in some cases, as I do, that there are ways to either eliminate some of these terrible mass shootings or at least make them less deadly.

There have been no scientific (i.e. not junk science propaganda cobbled together by gun-control proponents) studies that prove a causal link between gun ownership and crime rates.

The features that are used to define "assault weapons" are either cosmetic or ergonomic in nature and have NOTHING to do with the lethality of the weapon. The wound caused by a .223 bullet fired from an AR15 will be the same as one fired from a bolt action rifle.

Restrictions on magazine capacity are also highly unlikely to make a difference. One of the worst mass shootings, Virginia Tech, involved handguns with 10 and 15 round capacities. You mentioned that with low capacity magazines, victims would have the opportunity to disarm the shooter as he reloads. I can only think of two instances of all the mass shootings where this was attempted. One of those (the nut who shot Congresswoman Giffords) was thwarted BECAUSE the shooter had a high capacity magazine (33 round Glock mag) that stuck way out and provided the leverage needed to take it away.

If you want to murder a room full of passive victims who have no means of escape, magazine capacity is irrelevant. You could accomplish the same thing with a 6 shot revolver and a pocket full of cartridges, especially given that you would most likely have 15-20 minutes before any armed response arrived.

On the other hand, if you are lawfully defending yourself against several assailants (think home invasion or civil break downs such as the LA riots or Katrina) who are charging you in a deadly attack, a 30 round magazine which negates the necessity to reload might be critical.

Now I'm sure you will disagree with that last statement. Go ahead and do so; disagree all you want, but do not make the error of mistaking the motives of those who oppose you. With very few exceptions, they are well-meaning, and do not have the ulterior motives you and others ascribe to them.

I'd be willing to concede that there are a lot of people who are completely ignorant of the issue who are well intentioned. However, there are a VAST number of others who have very different ideas. Gun control hero Sen Feinstein (as well as many other politicians recently) has voiced her preference to confiscate firearms. Years ago, Josh Sugarmann years ago outlined a plan to systematically disarm Americans, beginning with semi-automatic rifles that look like military assault weapons as the public could be easily misled that both were the same. If you look over the last few decades, every time gun control legislation has passed it has been touted as a "reasonable, common sense measure", that afterward is called "an important FIRST step". Incrementalism is not gun owners paranoia, it is many gun control fanatics modus operandi.

Read some of the liberal blogs or reader responses to news stories about guns or gun crimes. Gun owners are frequently depicted as racist, ignorant red-necks. Gun control advocates often refer to anyone who owns "assault weapons" as a criminal. Many of them are guilty of that which they claim to abhor- hate filled bigotry.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 06:47 PM
The only limit that I personally propose is on gun magazines. As I explained in the other thread, I am in favor of this because I believe it MIGHT save lives in some mass shooting incidents. The other measure I am in favor of, removing the private sales loophole, places no limitation on you so long as you are not a convicted felon.

I do not believe felons, like the guy who carjacked me, are going to obey the law. But having laws in place can make it more difficult for him, and that's what I want to do.

JRH6856
January 26, 2013, 06:48 PM
In the vernacular of the day, infringe = limit. Banning magazines based on capacity is imposing a limitation. Thus, a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

As for enforcing existing laws: Currently when buying a firearm from an FFL dealer, one must complete a Form 4473 in which the buyer states he is qualified to legally make the purchase. If he subsequently fails the background check, then he has falsified the 4473. This is a federal offense. VP Joe Biden told the NRA that the government does not have the time or the manpower to investigate or prosecution these violations. Hello? Someone is illegally trying to buy a gun. Might it not be a good idea to at least inquire as to why? Or is it best to wait until they have acquired one by other means and see what they do with it? Why create more violations that will be ignored?

knifestuff
January 26, 2013, 06:50 PM
Let me suggest a broader perspective. Timmy4, we bring up the 2nd amendment because it is one of the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. Its not the Bills of Rights--its one Bill of Rights. When we let one right become unduly infringed upon, we really let the entire Bill of Rights be threatened. Firearms ownership spans much more than the 2nd amendment; we make a statement when we support the 2nd amendment and that incorporates elements of the 1st. We own and possess (or can possess) firearms, thus the 4th and 5th amendment comes into play, with protections for property rights and due process. All powers not ennumerated to the Federal gov't are reserved to the individual State under the 10th amendment (that one really get overlooks today), so an intervention by the Federal gov't into areas typically reserved to the State (mental incompetency determinations comes to mind) may actually be an infringement upon that amendment. Guns are not just about the 2nd amendment, but support and are supported throughout the Bill of Rights. There's a larger issue at play here, IMHO, and it revolves around true liberty and placing controls on the gov't so individual liberties are not unduly threatened. That's why the Bill of Rights was so important to the framers of our form of gov't--to specify protections and balance for the individual against a federal governmental structure. It was important back then, and I think its still important today. I applaud you for your conduct in opening this discussion and appreciate your sincerity in the dialogue.

meanmrmustard
January 26, 2013, 06:50 PM
I do not desire to infringe on your right to bear arms.

As I have stated, I am in favor of two specific gun control measures: banning high capacity gun magazines, and forcing all sales or transfers of firearms to go through background checks for the proposed buyer so as to enforce existing laws that make it illegal for convicted felons to purchase them. I do not believe that either of these measures infringe upon your right to bear arms.

First, unless you are a member of Congress or King Oby himself, I don't fear you. You haven't the right any more so than the above fore mentioned to infringe my rights. Good luck in trying though.

Secondly, and as has been stated about a hundred or more times since you've began these threads; You are apparently quite set on these two proposed changes, sadly, either of which can only be effective if criminals obey the law. Both of these infringe on our rights in that they give the government, decided by us on whether or not its tyrannical, an idea of what we have.

We don't tell terrorist what we are bringing to the party.
We don't call countries we try to help liberate from genocidal leadership and let them know that we have several thousand troops in transit and Sidewinders pointed at their Capitol.

Seriously, think past the obviously absurd.

skeeziks
January 26, 2013, 06:51 PM
"As I have stated, I am in favor of two specific gun control measures: banning high capacity gun magazines,..."

It wouldn't just end with the ban on the mags & "assault" rifles.

Can you understand that the govt. will Not be satisfied with that and will keep trying to whittle away more & more? They are selling the people this fallacy that it's "for the safety of the citizens" when what they're really trying to do is further their own agenda. They want us disarmed. But not totally...they don't want our hunting rifles and shotguns. :scrutiny:

I want you to understand the difference between what "You" want...and what "They" want.

To put it more plainly, a ban on high cap mags and the background checks might be the only thing that you propose...but it's Not the only thing that They propose. And it's what THEY propose that counts.

buckhorn_cortez
January 26, 2013, 06:53 PM
The rest of your post is just as incorrect, sorry.

No Timmy, it's not. You're just refusing to accept the arguments - that's the normal response when you've been proven wrong.

But, in any event - here's two questions for you.

1. None of the controls proposed by Diane Feinstein would have prevented either Columbine or Sandy Hook. Why is she proposing those controls?

2. If these gun controls are so important - why is the bill written so that government officials would be exempt from the laws?

mljdeckard
January 26, 2013, 06:54 PM
Your apparent willingness to be open-minded is belied by your flagrant unwillingness to believe anything that challenges lines you will not cross. OF COURSE they want to ban all guns. What they are doing right now is hammering at people's sensibilities to prepare them to accept smaller restrictions FOR NOW. They can't take them all at once.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them ... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Dianne Feinstein
60 Minutes
U.S. Senator (D-CA)
1995-02-05

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

Joseph Biden
quoted by AP
U.S. Senator
1993-11-18

"We must get rid of all the guns."

Sarah Brady
Phil Donahue Show
1994

"The NRA is bound and determined not to allow the Brady Bill to be enacted. And they're a fearsome opponent. They see this as `threshold' legislation. Because they realize if we get the Brady Bill to President Clinton and he signs it into law, then the door will be wide open for further gun control legislation. Of course, we hope that's true because, as you know, our campaign to enact a National Gun Policy to combat gun violence doesn't end with the Brady Bill - it just begins."

Sarah Brady
HCI newsletter
1993-03

"The national guard fulfills the the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves."

Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senator (D-CA)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe."

Dianne Feinstein
quoted by the Associated Press
U.S. Senator (D-CA)
1993-11-18

"I just want you to know that we are working on it," [Sarah] Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

Barrack Obama
meeting between Jay Carney, Jim Brady, Sarah Brady, and President Obama, quoted in the Washington Post, 2011-04-12
U.S. President
2011-03-30

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

Janet Reno
U.S. Attorney General
1993-12-10

"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the detauls, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush
Evan Osnos, Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, p. C3
Representative, D-IL
1999-12-05

"...the only people who use them [so-called assault weapons] are mass murderers..."

Charles Schumer
PBS debate with Bill McCollum
U.S. Senator (D-NY)
1996

"Whatever right the Second Amendment protects is not as important as it was 200 years ago ... [The government should] deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrasing Amendment."

George Will
1991

I have restricted this to quotes from people who are currently influencing this argument. Of course there are countless others. To state that those trying to pass 'common sense' legislation NOW don't ultimately want to ban and confiscate all guns is either willfully naive or flagrantly dishonest. Period.

timmy4
January 26, 2013, 06:54 PM
There have been no scientific (i.e. not junk science propaganda cobbled together by gun-control proponents) studies that prove a causal link between gun ownership and crime rates.

The features that are used to define "assault weapons" are either cosmetic or ergonomic in nature and have NOTHING to do with the lethality of the weapon. The wound caused by a .223 bullet fired from an AR15 will be the same as one fired from a bolt action rifle.

Restrictions on magazine capacity are also highly unlikely to make a difference. One of the worst mass shootings, Virginia Tech, involved handguns with 10 and 15 round capacities. You mentioned that with low capacity magazines, victims would have the opportunity to disarm the shooter as he reloads. I can only think of two instances of all the mass shootings where this was attempted. One of those (the nut who shot Congresswoman Giffords) was thwarted BECAUSE the shooter had a high capacity magazine (33 round Glock mag) that stuck way out and provided the leverage needed to take it away.

If you want to murder a room full of passive victims who have no means of escape, magazine capacity is irrelevant. You could accomplish the same thing with a 6 shot revolver and a pocket full of cartridges, especially given that you would most likely have 15-20 minutes before any armed response arrived.

On the other hand, if you are lawfully defending yourself against several assailants (think home invasion or civil break downs such as the LA riots or Katrina) who are charging you in a deadly attack, a 30 round magazine which negates the necessity to reload might be critical.



I'd be willing to concede that there are a lot of people who are completely ignorant of the issue who are well intentioned. However, there are a VAST number of others who have very different ideas. Gun control hero Sen Feinstein (as well as many other politicians recently) has voiced her preference to confiscate firearms. Years ago, Josh Sugarmann years ago outlined a plan to systematically disarm Americans, beginning with semi-automatic rifles that look like military assault weapons as the public could be easily misled that both were the same. If you look over the last few decades, every time gun control legislation has passed it has been touted as a "reasonable, common sense measure", that afterward is called "an important FIRST step". Incrementalism is not gun owners paranoia, it is many gun control fanatics modus operandi.

Read some of the liberal blogs or reader responses to news stories about guns or gun crimes. Gun owners are frequently depicted as racist, ignorant red-necks. Gun control advocates often refer to anyone who owns "assault weapons" as a criminal. Many of them are guilty of that which they claim to abhor- hate filled bigotry.
1. I don't believe there is any relationship between legal gun ownership and high crime rates. That is irrelevant, however, to any of my arguments.

2. Your example of Virginia Tech is the one most often brought up (along with Columbine.) But I can also bring up plenty of examples, starting with Jared Loughner and Aurora, where I believe lives would have been saved with the gun magazine limitation.

3. I was in the middle of the Los Angeles riots. I know all about the Korean store owners. Despite this, I reject the necessity of high cap magazines for this defense. I also want to note that there is a major contradiction in your argument. You can't at the same time argue that these magazines are NOT necessary for bad guys to do damage and that they are necessary for good guys to defend themselves. That is a logical fallacy.

4. I recognize that gun owners are often depicted in negative ways. I don't believe that myself. It is an unfair label. I have great respect for most gun-owners.

gearhead
January 26, 2013, 06:56 PM
At some point you stated that by banning the sale of standard capacity magazines it "might make it more difficult" to commit a mass murder. In Newtown, Adam Lanza tried to buy a gun through a dealer and the laws worked as they were intended. He was denied. This deterrent only gave him the resolve to murder his own mother in cold blood to get the tool he desired to commit the abhorrent acts that occurred. So convince me that buying a gun or magazine through the black market will be a greater deterrent than that.

Furthermore, if the source of domestically obtained black market weapons begins to dry up the world network of organized crime will simply fill the void with foreign-sourced military weapons. These won't be the neutered semi-automatic versions but they will be the full-auto versions. The risk of smuggling these weapons is currently greater than the potential reward since illegally obtained domestic guns are inexpensive enough but the Law of Unintended Consequences says that if that demand is filled by the same sources that fill the demand for such weapons in Mexico and other parts of the world then they will be the fully-featured military versions.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!