Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Timmy,

You asked for a real life example where someone died in a home invasion because 10 rounds weren't enough.
I've got something I want you to read. I first read this story about Susan and Mike Gonzalez's nightmare over 11 years ago. Fortunately they survived, but as you read it you'll see how easily it could have gone the other way.

I want you to read it not only to possibly help you "see the light," but to maybe help you save the lives of you and your family someday.

Here's the article: http://www.womenshooters.com/archive/old0501issue/lyn0501.html
 
But for home invasion? I'm not convinced.
Click to expand...
For somebody who by his own admission doesn't own a gun, and clearly knows virtually NOTHING about firearms, you sure seem to have a lot of opinions about firearms and tactics for employing them for self-defense.

The problem of course is that NONE of these opinions appear to be informed in any way by actual knowledge or experience.

I'm not sure why you would expect anyone to be receptive to having their rights and their personal safety negatively impacted on the basis of sheer ignorance.
 
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.
Click to expand...


This is rather convenient isn't it? You're the one arguing that the current law change you have to prove how magazine limitations will prevent excessive deaths in mass shootings.

Your also asserting that 30 rounds isn't necessary for home defense. I've asked this before, what tactical advantage is gained from having fewer rounds? I didn't notice a reply perhaps you can help me find it.

Actually don't bother you are no longer worth my time.

I find it sad that someone who has no experience in firearms is suggesting to those with experience how many rounds they need for defense. Also you want to infringe on our rights by limiting magazine sizes without any empirical evidence that it will be beneficial. Which, ironically, you then tells us we need to prove why we need 30 rounds for self defense.



Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
 
timmy4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Before we turn the 2nd Amendment inside out, shouldn't there be some proof that limiting magazine capacities would save more lives during shooting rampages than would be lost during legitimate self defense with standard-capacity magazines?

Since you would limit magazine capacities, shouldn't you be the one doing the proving?
 
OK, I'm back. This post is going to be rather long, but there are several points I want to get to:

1. I recognize that there is another thread I started, specifically regarding gun magazines, which people are still posting in (presumably in response to some of my posts there.) I started that thread because this one was closed. I may return to it, but for the moment this thread is so overwhelming in terms of the responses that I simply can't do both. So I apologize, but I will be focusing on this thread for the time being.

2. My response to the post about Joshua was called "smug and thoughtless." I don't believe that it was. What would have been thoughtless (and downright rude) would for me to treat Joshua any differently due to his disability. I do admit to throwing in a little levity (my Jack Bauer comments)- sometimes I am prone to do that if I think the conversation might need it. But keep in mind I am not the one who brought up Jack Bauer in the first place.

3. I have made the point that it is not up to me to prove that a 30 round magazine is not a necessity for home defense- it is up to you to prove that it is. Not for legal purposes, but only for the purpose of this discussion. The assumption that these high caliber rounds are a necessity is one that most of you have made from the beginning of the discussion. I've asked you to back it up, and you really haven't done that- you've provided anecdotes, (like the one just provided about the woman who was anti-gun until faced with 3 intruders) but none of them, IMO, really apply to this specific issue. I have asked for an example in which someone who had a 10 round magazine ran out of bullets and was killed by a home invader. Someone called that a ludicrous request- to the contrary, I believe it is the ONLY type of example that would prove your point. Without it, I have to regard it as an unwarranted assumption.

4. There continues to be a few posters who accuse me of trying to disrupt this forum- spread disarray, etc. I have to say that if that were my intent, then I'm pretty much an abject failure, aren't I? Have I managed to sway a single person to ONE of my arguments here yet? On the other hand, I have been swayed a little to some of yours. I came in here to learn, to discuss, and to debate. I won't hide the fact that I enjoy good argument. I don't enjoy rudeness, either giving it out or receiving it. I know that some of what I write is going to make some of you emotional and even angry- that's because this issue is so important to so many people.

Now I will try to respond to some of the posts here. If I don't respond to yours directly, please don't think I am deliberately ignoring you. There's just so many. I will not respond further to any questioning about my motives. I told you what they are; you have the right to believe me or not.
 
aeriedad said:
Before we turn the 2nd Amendment inside out, shouldn't there be some proof that limiting magazine capacities would save more lives during shooting rampages than would be lost during legitimate self defense with standard-capacity magazines?

Since you would limit magazine capacities, shouldn't you be the one doing the proving?
Click to expand...
No for two reasons. First, because I continue to hold that a ban on high cap magazines would NOT turn the 2nd Amendment "inside out". My original statement that such a ban would have no effect on the 2nd Amendment continues to be my position, and I have seen no evidence otherwise.

Second, I stated my reason for having the ban. In order for me to justify myself, I have to prove THAT reason. (Which, by the way, I have not been able to do to my own satisfaction, which is why I am reconsidering my position.) The argument about these magazines being a necessity for home defense is YOUR argument, not mine. I did not initiate it, YOU did. (By "you" I mean most of the people here.) Therefore, it's up to you to prove it's true, not up to me to prove it's false.
 
high caliber rounds
Click to expand...

Timmy4, just for the sake of people's heads not exploding around here, can we please clarify some terminology?

"high caliber rounds".

What the heck do you mean by this? You're still on the topic of magazine capacity, right? I think you mean "high capacity magazines"?

High-caliber rounds = large bullets: in rifle terms, a .375, .458, .50 etc. AR-15's typically fire small caliber rounds: .223, designed to be less powerful than the ubiquitous .30 (e.g., 30'06, etc.)
 
I think that the argument of not being able to resist a tyrannical gvmt with the use of personal arms is seriously flawed.

The constitution does not say we have the right to win, or that if we can't win we can't fight, it says we have the right to defend ourselves. Whether or not it can be done successfully or has been done successfully is a red herring. It's my right to do the best I can - it is not anyones right to preclude me from doing so.

The fact that Japan could not have invaded the west coast because they lost at Midway is also irrelevant - Yamamoto knew that there was no way possible to invade the US because: "You cannot invade America. There is a rifle behind every blade of grass." Isoroku Yamamoto (thank you certaindeaf for pointing out that quote) His war planning was fundamentally driven by that consideration - certainly in conjunction with other considerations. Whether or not he could have convinced the Japanese militarists in their army to not invade is another matter altogether. They had no problems with a largely defenseless Manchuria.

I have no idea if we can ever experience the level of tyranny to justify civil uprising - but neither can anyone guarantee it won't happen. You can't even guarantee that bubba can be kept out of my house long enough for the police to get here.

Sandy Hook was a horrible, horrible occurrence. Restricting the 2nd amendment rights of all US citizens is monstrous and would do virtually nothing to limit mass murder.
 
Deanimator said:
For somebody who by his own admission doesn't own a gun, and clearly knows virtually NOTHING about firearms, you sure seem to have a lot of opinions about firearms and tactics for employing them for self-defense.

The problem of course is that NONE of these opinions appear to be informed in any way by actual knowledge or experience.

I'm not sure why you would expect anyone to be receptive to having their rights and their personal safety negatively impacted on the basis of sheer ignorance.
Click to expand...
This is a common refrain, and it's a little insulting as well. If you have reason on your side, then experience doesn't matter. If you lack reason, then all the experience in the world won't help you.

I do not claim to be any kind of expert on firearms. I have respect for those who are. I would note that, among those who are firearms experts, they are not nearly so uniform on this issue as some of you in this forum would like to believe. So please stop assuming that because you know more about firearms than I do, that automatically makes you right on these issues and me wrong. Make the argument and if it's reasonable I'll consider it.
 
I have made the point that it is not up to me to prove that a 30 round magazine is not a necessity for home defense- it is up to you to prove that it is.
Click to expand...
Bzzzz. Wrong answer. Thank you for playing.

If you want to abridge somebody else's rights YOU have a duty to justify it.

OR, is it your position that if somebody proposes banning Judaism, YOU should have to justify being a Jew instead of an Episcopalian, rather than them having to justify forbidding you from being a Jew?

Explain to me why you don't have to JUSTIFY being a Jew instead of a Methodist.
 
Gaiudo said:
Timmy4, just for the sake of people's heads not exploding around here, can we please clarify some terminology?

"high caliber rounds".

What the heck do you mean by this? You're still on the topic of magazine capacity, right? I think you mean "high capacity magazines"?

High-caliber rounds = large bullets: in rifle terms, a .375, .458, .50 etc. AR-15's typically fire small caliber rounds: .223, designed to be less powerful than the ubiquitous .30 (e.g., 30'06, etc.)
Click to expand...
It was a typo. I was typing too fast. Sorry, I meant high caliber magazines.

I have learned a little bit and I do try to be careful in my use of terminology. You'll note that I have not once used the term "gun show loophole" because I've come to understand that this is a media term that doesn't really exist. I use the term "private sales loophole" which is more accurate.
 
Timmy4 --

I think you are confused. You (plural) want to put restrictions on us, so it is up to you to prove there is sufficient reason for you to be allowed to do so.

Why on earth do you imagine that we need to prove that you shouldn't?
 
Deanimator said:
Bzzzz. Wrong answer. Thank you for playing.

If you want to abridge somebody else's rights YOU have a duty to justify it.

OR, is it your position that if somebody proposes banning Judaism, YOU should have to justify being a Jew instead of an Episcopalian, rather than them having to justify forbidding you from being a Jew?

Explain to me why you don't have to JUSTIFY being a Jew instead of a Methodist.
Click to expand...
He's only asking us to justify it in the debate, not legally. It's a request for an opinion.

3. I have made the point that it is not up to me to prove that a 30 round magazine is not a necessity for home defense- it is up to you to prove that it is. Not for legal purposes, but only for the purpose of this discussion.
Click to expand...

-MW
 
John3921 said:
I think that the argument of not being able to resist a tyrannical gvmt with the use of personal arms is seriously flawed.

The constitution does not say we have the right to win, or that if we can't win we can't fight, it says we have the right to defend ourselves. Whether or not it can be done successfully or has been done successfully is a red herring. It's my right to do the best I can - it is not anyones right to preclude me from doing so.

The fact that Japan could not have invaded the west coast because they lost at Midway is also irrelevant - Yamamoto knew that there was no way possible to invade the US because: "You cannot invade America. There is a rifle behind every blade of grass." Isoroku Yamamoto (thank you certaindeaf for pointing out that quote) His war planning was fundamentally driven by that consideration - certainly in conjunction with other considerations. Whether or not he could have convinced the Japanese militarists in their army to not invade is another matter altogether. They had no problems with a largely defenseless Manchuria.

I have no idea if we can ever experience the level of tyranny to justify civil uprising - but neither can anyone guarantee it won't happen. You can't even guarantee that bubba can be kept out of my house long enough for the police to get here.

Sandy Hook was a horrible, horrible occurrence. Restricting the 2nd amendment rights of all US citizens is monstrous and would do virtually nothing to limit mass murder.
Click to expand...
What can I say? I disagree with just about every aspect of your post, except for the last two sentences.

Whatever Yamamoto's quote was or meant, I'm sure there are plenty of military experts in this forum who know exactly what I'm talking about. If you want proof, please note that the United States did not invade Europe until we had complete control of the air, and then we invaded it at the closest possible point to England. And when we invaded Germany, the German people were privately well-armed (ever hear of the "People's Army"?) Somehow that didn't stop us, because their rifles and lugars were helpless against our artillery and planes. It's just not a good argument.
 
high caliber magazines
Click to expand...

High Capacity Magazines. There's no such thing as a "high caliber magazine". Unless you mean a magazine that's extra wide or something.

By which I assume you mean 100 round magazines? It's already been established plenty of times in this thread that 20 and 30 round magazines are the standard magazines shipped with the factory weapon.
 
Timmy.... please see my post # 482 and print out the article so you can read it tonight or whenever you can at your leisure.
 
timmy4 said:
It was a typo. I was typing too fast. Sorry, I meant high caliber magazines.

I have learned a little bit and I do try to be careful in my use of terminology. You'll note that I have not once used the term "gun show loophole" because I've come to understand that this is a media term that doesn't really exist. I use the term "private sales loophole" which is more accurate.
Click to expand...
Argghh! Still more typos. Typing too fast for my own good.

HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES!!!

That's what I meant, sorry. Now I feel really stupid.
 
timmy4 said:
OK, I'm back. This post is going to be rather long, but there are several points I want to get to:

1. I recognize that there is another thread I started, specifically regarding gun magazines, which people are still posting in (presumably in response to some of my posts there.) I started that thread because this one was closed. I may return to it, but for the moment this thread is so overwhelming in terms of the responses that I simply can't do both. So I apologize, but I will be focusing on this thread for the time being.

2. My response to the post about Joshua was called "smug and thoughtless." I don't believe that it was. What would have been thoughtless (and downright rude) would for me to treat Joshua any differently due to his disability. I do admit to throwing in a little levity (my Jack Bauer comments)- sometimes I am prone to do that if I think the conversation might need it. But keep in mind I am not the one who brought up Jack Bauer in the first place.

3. I have made the point that it is not up to me to prove that a 30 round magazine is not a necessity for home defense- it is up to you to prove that it is. Not for legal purposes, but only for the purpose of this discussion. The assumption that these high caliber rounds are a necessity is one that most of you have made from the beginning of the discussion. I've asked you to back it up, and you really haven't done that- you've provided anecdotes, (like the one just provided about the woman who was anti-gun until faced with 3 intruders) but none of them, IMO, really apply to this specific issue. I have asked for an example in which someone who had a 10 round magazine ran out of bullets and was killed by a home invader. Someone called that a ludicrous request- to the contrary, I believe it is the ONLY type of example that would prove your point. Without it, I have to regard it as an unwarranted assumption.

4. There continues to be a few posters who accuse me of trying to disrupt this forum- spread disarray, etc. I have to say that if that were my intent, then I'm pretty much an abject failure, aren't I? Have I managed to sway a single person to ONE of my arguments here yet? On the other hand, I have been swayed a little to some of yours. I came in here to learn, to discuss, and to debate. I won't hide the fact that I enjoy good argument. I don't enjoy rudeness, either giving it out or receiving it. I know that some of what I write is going to make some of you emotional and even angry- that's because this issue is so important to so many people.

Now I will try to respond to some of the posts here. If I don't respond to yours directly, please don't think I am deliberately ignoring you. There's just so many. I will not respond further to any questioning about my motives. I told you what they are; you have the right to believe me or not.
Click to expand...
Dear Timmy,

You absolutely understand that the hierarchy of scientific knowledge starts with anecdotal "case" evidence. Why would you ask for a randomized scientific study, you won't accept anecdotal evidence, when you know that such a study does not exist leading to a situation where your parameters cannot be falsified which is in itself unscientific. Here is a short treatise on scientific falsification.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

The best we can do in these gun issues is observational case studies which are all based on an anecdotal series if available. If not, anecdotal evidence is the best available. Your criteria is not falsifiable and thus is not scientific.

On the other hand, the anti's use the 30 round argument in exactly the fashion you say WE can't by stating that they are too easy to kill a large number of people at one time. You can't argue one without arguing the other because you end up being hypocritically illogical in your treatise. Either 30 round magazines are effective (rationale for banning) or they are not. If you propose that a 30 round magazine is too deadly, then you my friend prove our point that they are necessary for SOME self defense situations. Sir, you cannot have it both ways.
 
skeeziks said:
Timmy.... please see my post # 482 and print out the article so you can read it tonight or whenever you can at your leisure.
Click to expand...
I've already read it, thanks.

I think it's a good article, and it demonstrates why guns can be necessary for home defense. But that's something I'm already willing to accept- I believe in your right to have firearms. The article does NOT demonstrate, at least to my satisfaction, any evidence that high caliber magazines are necessary.
 
Timmy - no single bullet from either a handgun or rifle is guaranteed to stop an assailant. Police have put more that twenty bullets into an individual before stopping him. There was one marine sniper, Carlos Hathcock, who shot three big bore 30 caliber bullets into individual before he dropped. When faced with multiple assailants, it stands to reason that more than ten rounds are desired. Someone else linked to a home invasion where the homeowner wished she had more than ten rounds to repel the three assailants.
 
Alaska444 said:
Dear Timmy,

You absolutely understand that the hierarchy of scientific knowledge starts with anecdotal "case" evidence. Why would you ask for a randomized scientific study, you won't accept anecdotal evidence, when you know that such a study does not exist leading to a situation where your parameters cannot be falsified which is in itself unscientific. Here is a short treatise on scientific falsification.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
Click to expand...
??? I did ask for anecdotal evidence. I haven't asked for any sort of statistical study. I recognize that the latter would be impossible in this instance.
 
"The article does NOT demonstrate, at least to my satisfaction, any evidence that high caliber magazines are necessary."

Then you didn't read the whole article...or you read as fast as you type.

Didn't you read where she ran out of bullets and the bad guy came back and put the shotgun to her head? And the magazine in her gun only held 10 rounds?
 
This is a common refrain, and it's a little insulting as well.
Click to expand...
Lots of people are "insulted" by being asked to justify their positions. It's of no consequence to me.

If you have reason on your side, then experience doesn't matter. If you lack reason, then all the experience in the world won't help you.
Click to expand...
"Reason" absent facts is invariably unreasonable.

National Socialist racial theory is utterly contrary to known scientific fact. And those who promote it express "insult" at having their counter-factual, irrational dogma questioned. Again, I couldn't care less.

You "reason" from facts not only not in evidence, but frequently definitively disproved. That's not "reason". Dogma, fantasy, delusion, but NOT reason.

I do not claim to be any kind of expert on firearms.
Click to expand...
And how could you? You prove your lack of knowledge with every statement.

I have respect for those who are.
Click to expand...
You have no apparent respect for actual facts. Otherwise you wouldn't disdain them to the extent that you do.

I would note that, among those who are firearms experts, they are not nearly so uniform on this issue as some of you in this forum would like to believe.
Click to expand...
Name one.

I'm pretty used to that kind of thing having debated both Holocaust deniers and NAMBLA members. What constitutes an "expert" is INVARIABLY someone who agrees with the counter-factual assertions, no matter how ludicrous.

So please stop assuming that because you know more about firearms than I do, that automatically makes you right on these issues and me wrong.
Click to expand...
It's not an assumption. It's simple fact. You don't know what you're talking about, but instead of educating yourself, you merely dismiss fact as irrelevant. Again, that's nothing new to me, having debated at various times, Holocaust deniers, Stalinists and NAMBLA members. A disdain for facts by the proponents is a glaring warning sign that the "argument" is a spurious one.

Make the argument and if it's reasonable I'll consider it.
Click to expand...
By your own admission, you're fundamentally unequipped intellectually to determine reasonableness. I could say literally ANYTHING and you wouldn't have ANY basis on which to judge its factual nature, and hence its reasonableness.
 
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