Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

timmy4 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I don't think a nuclear suitcase bomb is a poor argument, but if you'd like, how about a rocket launcher?

Click to expand...

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.

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?

timmy4 said:

Frankly, I'm not sure the restriction should be 10. Anything less than 10 seems unreasonable to me. But 30 seems too high.

Click to expand...

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.

timmy4 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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".

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?

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 said:

Is this simply your interpretation, or are you convinced that any limitation on high capacity magazines WILL be overturned by the SC?

Click to expand...

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.

ApacheCoTodd said:

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".

Click to expand...

And there it is!

timmy4 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Highcaliber said:

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.

Click to expand...

''
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.

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

timmy4 said:

I am Jewish; my grandparents and great-grandparents were victims of the Holocaust.

Click to expand...

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.

timmy4 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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,

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?

timmy4 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."

Frankly, I'm not sure the restriction should be 10. Anything less than 10 seems unreasonable to me. But 30 seems too high.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Never heard of Nothern Ireland, have you?

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.

Click to expand...

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