Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
timmy4 said:
What I don't buy is that private gun ownership deters tyranny in any way. I get that, in your opinion, that was the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (this is certainly not a universal opinion by any means) but even if it was the original intent, it no longer applies on a practical basis.
Click to expand...
You're doing something here you shouldn't be: you're judging the likely outcome of something you have no experience with and likely don't understand.

You'll find a higher proportion of folks who've dedicated a few of their formative years to carry an M16 here than you will in normal life. We think...differently about the sorts of conflicts and their likely outcome than you do. For instance, you'd probably argue that firearms are useless against tanks. I've detailed in another thread recently how a couple of decades ago 4 tanks (the entire platoon) were "killed" on a training exercise with a single pistol.

Impossible? Nope. You just don't understand the issue the same way I do. Here's another example.

We've totally pacified those folks in Iraq and Afghanistan over most of the last decade, right? Totally safe place now, all our political goals were met, etc?

You'll argue that that's totally different because they have access to explosives they can rewire with cell phones, and civilians can't buy explosives. You'd be wrong, but even if you were right explosives are pretty well understood -- it's not hard to improvise. And on, and on, and on...

Firearms are still a guard against tyrrany. For you to argue otherwise is simply an admission that you don't have the requisite knowledge and haven't researched the topic enough. I know where you're coming from, but (and I'm not sure how to word this nicely) you're wrong on this one.

It may be inconceivable to you. That doesn't make it incorrect.
 
timmy4 said:
I don't buy the self-defense argument for 30 round magazines, but that remains an intuitive position on my part- it doesn't make sense to me that 30 rounds would be necessary for home defense.

.
Click to expand...

Why do Police have 30 round magazines? They have other officers on scene with guns and radios.

Now in a situation where cops might need to be called in with their 30 round mags in their rifles. Guess who called them? It was a citizen who has no backup and no radio. you want to limit us with no other resources to less than that of the police we have to wait an undetermined amount of time for?


http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Overnight-Incident-at-Coral-Ridge-Mall-185154191.html
Scheels in Coralville recently had someone drive through the front door, police were on scene within minutes @ 2:30 am. They did not go in the building after the guy for 6 hours. response times may be quick however that doesn't mean they are going to come in and help either though. They may just sit outside and wait for the criminal to finish with you. After all there is no duty to protect individuals, just society as a whole.
 
timmy4 said:
With all respect to your friend Joshua:

My purpose for making high cap magazines illegal is to prevent excessive deaths in mass shooting situations. (I am now reconsidering that position, thanks in part to some of the excellent arguments made in this thread.) One of the arguments made against this limitation is that these sorts of magazines are necessary for home defense. That is an assertion on YOUR part- I don't have to prove that you're wrong; you need to prove that you're right.

Now someone referenced Jack Bauer. So I'll concede: if your friend Joshua, or you, or anyone else here ever faces a "Jack Bauer situation" in which dozens of armed combatants are seeking your death while you are racing around Los Angeles trying to find the location of a nuclear device before it explodes, then yeah, you might need high capacity magazines (along with a whole lot of other ordnance as well.) But for home invasion? I'm not convinced.
Click to expand...

Actually, when it comes to rights we don't have to prove them. The Supreme Court generally falls on the side that to limit a right, you must make a very compelling argument for the restriction.

So, in fact you would need to prove I'm wrong if you wanted to argue this before a court.


And I thought we were having a reasonable discussion here. Why smugly dismiss my friend Joshua with some stupid Hollywood t.v. series like that?

If Joshua had three people decide to assault him, rob him, or if he were a woman - rape him, he'd be at a bigger disadvantage than he already is.

Just because he might not survive an encounter like that doesn't mean you should make it even less possible. He deserves a fighting chance.

So do the rest of us.


I find your smug, thoughtless response to a concern people like Joshua live with every day extremely distasteful.
 
Originally Posted by timmy4
Gotta run again! Will post later.
Click to expand...
... repeatedly says the person that needs to go converse with their anit 2A supporters to come up with more phobia based counter arguements....
Click to expand...

Not at all. He's a real estate broker with a family. Please keep it High Road.

-MW
 
timmy4 said:
Your comment about the Japanese not invading Hawaii or the mainland because of privately armed citizens is one that I've seen earlier here. Of all the "historical tyranny" arguments, it may be the most absurd.

Japan didn't invade Hawaii because they lost the Battle of Midway, which meant they did not have the air power or supply lines to support an invasion. That's all. That's the only reason. They didn't invade the mainland United States because (a) that was never their war aim and (b) we were way far away- no supply lines to support an invasion. Japan invaded plenty of countries nearby them in which the populace had guns, including Manila, Singapore, Malaysia, China, etc. The guns didn't stop them from invading.

Seriously, there are a lot of military people in this forum, by all accounts. I'm surprised they let this nonsense go on.
Click to expand...
Absurd? "You cannot invade America. There is a rifle behind every blade of grass." Isoroku Yamamoto
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Deanimator said:
And you know this how?

Did you do a background investigation on him?
Click to expand...

Because I've read the whole darned thread. He's also Jewish, been the victim of a car jacking, and lost grandparents and great grandparents during the holocaust.

Granted, he's getting a bit snarky towards the end, but he's been the recipient of some pretty harsh bashing here. (Not saying he didn't ask for it...) I don't think he has a reason to misrepresent himself. His arguments, while somewhat naive at times, are genuine and smart.

-MW
 
timmy4:
I do not desire to infringe on your right to bear arms.

... I am in favor of ... banning high capacity gun magazines...

... I do not believe that [this will] infringe upon your right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Banning magazines infringes on the right to bear arms by limiting choice. Every time your choices are restricted, so too your liberties.

Such bans restrict the freedom to choose what we believe to be necessary for our purposes and merely satisfies the whim of those who would erringly make the peaceful vulnerable to the violent. We are the best judges of what we need, not those who will not stand before us when violence strikes, but who instead stand apart, dictating which of ours hands shall be tied and how many times we may strike back with the other.

For example:

I worked for years in a cash business subject to threats of violence and robbery. Shortly after I started, I began carrying a 7-round .45 ACP pistol for purposes of self defense and watched as the gradual increase in business and shift in clientele brought larger numbers of shadier-looking customers. I switched to carrying a 15-round 9mm because I wanted the ability to fire as many rounds as it might take to stop deadly threats to my life, and I wanted to be able to do that without having to reload, as it seemed apparent that pausing to do so, no matter how briefly, might prove fatal.

For you or anyone else to arbitrarily decide what was sufficient for my self defense then, or what is sufficient now, is absurd and potentially fatal. It aids me not in the least, nor does it perturb those who would break the law to inflict violence. What it does is make me more vulnerable as my choices of arms or ammunition are whittled down to something less and less than was available once before.

On another matter, elsewhere you wrote:

timmy4:
I'm going to reiterate that I reject all arguments regarding either the "slippery slope" …
Click to expand...

This is argumentatively unconscionable. It rejects demonstrable and well-documented proof of this very thing having already happened in the U.S. That you may disbelieve its occurrence, or that you may diminish its importance based upon scale or manner of restriction, does not in any way mean that these things have not happened. Nor does it acknowledge that numerous members of Congress are on record not merely declaring their intentions to get rid of guns, but are actively working to do so now.

The fact is the magazine ban you support IS the slippery slope. The “assault weapons ban” proposed by Dianne Feinstein IS the slippery slope. They ban tomorrow what is freely available today.

Thus members of Congress are yet again actively at work to infringe upon your rights. That you may not object to what rights they infringe upon today does not mean you will be happy with what rights they infringe upon tomorrow.

So it goes, as it ever has.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
 
Because I've read the whole darned thread. He's also Jewish, been the victim of a car jacking, and lost grandparents and great grandparents during the holocaust.
Click to expand...
I've probably been doing this longer than you have... maybe fifteen or twenty years longer.

I've seen anti-gunners claim to be a lot of things, including one person being four or five different people simultaneously, and of both sexes.

I had one tell me that he was "in 'Air Force special forces' in Vietnam, when all of the special forces were together". He also claimed there were "500 round magazines for AK47s", which OF COURSE, "nobody needs".

As the saying goes, "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
 
I'm going to reiterate that I reject all arguments regarding either the "slippery slope"
Click to expand...
So then you would not object to a law requiring Jews to wear armbands with Stars of David on them because that would not presage any other negative measures?

History doesn't go away because it defeats your argument.
 
Once again I'll remind everyone what I posted yesterday -

BullfrogKen said:
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.



Next person that calls timmy a troll gets an infraction.


Now to do some housekeeping here.
Click to expand...
 
I've probably been doing this longer than you have... maybe fifteen or twenty years longer.
Click to expand...

You do see where I live, right? I engineer network security stuff for the big fruit company out there. Not only have I been doing this for decades, I do it for a living. Not that anyone's counting... :)

Regardless, Timmy4 just has a life. I do somedays, too, so I respect that.

-MW
 
The gentleman cares only for what he believes, or feels. If he believes it to be true or truly feels it is reasonable he has no need to support his position with facts or research. He has exhibited no interest in changing his position or gaining additional knowledge. He is expertly jerking everyone around.

Dave
 
Last edited:
This guy Timmy, has been posting here for only a short time and we already have given him reason to re-think several of his initial beliefs. As many people who oppose us refuse to think at all... I submit that we refrain from bashing and snarky comments and continue to educate.
 
No, I seriously doubt we will change his mind at all. His arguments are illogical when it comes to the evidence actually present.
 
Lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
Lead an Anti to the truth but you cannot make him think.
 
Typing this from my iPhone. I'll be home in about an hour or less and I will respond to some of the recent posts.
 
timmy4 said:
I'll do the Troubles right now.

The Irish Republican Army was a terrorist organization. No different from al-Qaida or Hamas or Hezbollah, they recognized that their goal (a re-uniting of the six counties of Ulster) with Eire was unobtainable through normal military means. So they attempted to achieve that goal through the spread of terror- the killing of innocents. In the end, they failed: Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom. (It's important to note here that the modern gains of Sinn Fein and northern Irish Catholics were accomplished through peaceful negotiations and diplomacy- particularly the efforts of Bill Clinton- and not through violent means.
Click to expand...

As I already mentioned....most law-abiding citizens will resist by legal means.

But there are those that will not. THey already exist. One blew up a building in OKC (before his existence was snuffed). It only takes a few to completely disrupt society.

And as domestic terrorists, they will have plenty of justification...both in their own minds AND Constitutionally....to carry out their actions. They'll believe they are doing the right thing.

The economy would suffer as I wrote above. Terribly. The govt....whichever party is in office...cant afford it. The worse the economy gets, the greater the desperation of the people.

(Ireland still has one of the worse economies in Europe and it started much before the current crisis of the late 2000's. Also, they didnt need guns....they used explosives alot.)
 
timmy4 said:
Now someone referenced Jack Bauer. So I'll concede: if your friend Joshua, or you, or anyone else here ever faces a "Jack Bauer situation" in which dozens of armed combatants are seeking your death while you are racing around Los Angeles trying to find the location of a nuclear device before it explodes, then yeah, you might need high capacity magazines (along with a whole lot of other ordnance as well.) But for home invasion? I'm not convinced.
Click to expand...

Still seems right on the money to me:

9MMare said:
10 bullets fired at 3 home invaders while you scramble to get your family to safety? While they are firing at you?

Wow, I need to marry Jack Bauer.
Click to expand...

No need for dozens of armed combatants.
 
Please, gentlemen, no personal attacks on timmy4. If he was a troll, I doubt he'd still be here or still behaving in a civil fashion. We have a rare opportunity to engage someone of the opposite views in rational debate. Let's stay High Road, huh? :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
A Breakdown of the 2nd Amendment
Replies
16
Views
1K
9teenEleven
9
B
  • Locked
Great 2nd Amendment Event...
Replies
5
Views
576
BowStreetRunner
B
S
  • Locked
This might be the last decade for the 2nd Amendment
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
6K
David White
D
K
  • Locked
2nd Amendment vs 1st Amendment Strength, discuss...
Replies
10
Views
628
Graystar
G
E
  • Locked
Who Really Supports the 2nd Amendment
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
wuluf
W
Back
Top