Can I resume our discussion/debate?

[timmy4]

Hello, I'm back, and I'm eager to resume our discussion/debate. However, I have a few concerns:

1. I don't want to upset the moderators or anyone else here. Obviously, based on our previous discussions, I have a different viewpoint than most of you here. While I believe that I can express myself with the utmost respect and without personal attacks, there is no doubt that I'm going to anger some of you. These are touchy times and I get that people on all sides of the gun issue have strong feelings. What I don't want is for those feelings to overwhelm our conversation.

2. I am not a troll. My purpose is to discuss, debate, and to learn. The two previous threads I was involved in became somewhat bogged down with people arguing about my motives. I just stated what my motives are. If you don't believe me, or if you're not interesting in engaging in debate with someone you refer to as an "anti" (this forum is the first time I've ever heard that word used in this context) then please for both of our sakes stay out of the thread, so the moderators won't feel compelled to close it or punish anyone.

3. Regarding the moderators- you guys consistently closed my previous threads. Obviously that's your choice, but if there is something that I'm doing wrong that is causing this, I would appreciate you letting me know beforehand. I will limit my posts to this thread and this thread only, if that is what you want, but I would like the thread to stay open even when I am not around, so I don't have to petition you guys to open it up again. And I'd also like to avoid having you close the thread and asking me to stay away for a few days as you did last weekend. Again, please provide me with specific rules and I will follow them.

I think conversations/debates like these are very important, especially now. The issue of guns is front and center in American politics for the first time in many years. It's absolutely worth discussing and even arguing about, if for nothing else to clarify our positions. However, I want to make sure that I am welcome here. If a majority of you believe that it would serve no purpose for you to discuss these issues further with an "anti", then let me know and I will depart from this forum forever with no ill will.

I await your response.

 

[9MMare]

It would be cool if you responded to:

--the effects on the economy by the disruption of American society if citizens felt the need to resist the govt. using their 2A rights.

--all the anecdotal and statistical information you were given on home owners or permit holders facing multiple home invaders with lower capacity magazines in their firearms. Taking into consideration the info you were given on how being shot once or twice does not 'stop' the attack of attacker, how difficult it is to hit a target when under stress (you were offered the video of the cops and perpetrators firing point blank at each other in a car stop and no one hitting anyone), and the fact that it doesnt seem like an intelligent move to be at the disadvantage of being less prepared than your attackers. (Those were just a scant few of the examples provided in earlier discussions).

Not to mention that you already admitted lower cap. magazines wouldnt lower crime (sorry if I didnt word that verbatim)

 

[MagnumDweeb]

Personally the time for debate is over. Folks for the most part have picked their sides, liberty or submission. I'm personally done talking to the antis. Now I want to thwart them at every turn possible and show them that any law they pass can be circumvented. I ordered my 3D printer and am waiting on it to arrive to print my 30rd AR mags. So I can test them along with the ones I built out of aluminum sheeting purchased at a local hardware store. The followers and springs were bought online but I've drawn up the followers on CAD.

You have your position. I have mine. And I'm not budging, no way, now how. I don't have any use for antis or their politics unless they are handing me money and that only lasts as long as they are putting money in my handing and not doing anything else.

The issue of guns may be at the forefront, but why is that? Who is setting the agenda? Who is making it a conversation? Oh right, antis are. Pro-RKBA folks want to talk about other more important things that the Obama and Democrats have failed miserably at. They can't create confidence in businesses to create jobs, but they can attack the Constitution. They can't create a budget or get spending under control, but they can attack cosmetic features on a firearm. Fix the rest of the problems then come to the table.

Till then, I can only assume the government is too incompetent to accomplish anything, and protecting me by destroying my rights seems rather idiotic, like most of what Obama and Democrats have failed to do. Idiotic.

 

[Solo]

I would like to hear your opinion on Warren v District of Columbia.

 

[timmy4]

It would be cool if you responded to:

--the effects on the economy by the disruption of American society if citizens felt the need to resist the govt. using their 2A rights.

--all the anecdotal and statistical information you were given on home owners or permit holders facing multiple home invaders with lower capacity magazines in their firearms. Taking into consideration the info you were given on how being shot once or twice does not 'stop' the attack of attacker, how difficult it is to hit a target when under stress (you were offered the video of the cops and perpetrators firing point blank at each other in a car stop and no one hitting anyone), and the fact that it doesnt seem like an intelligent move to be at the disadvantage of being less prepared than your attackers. (Those were just a scant few of the examples provided in earlier discussions).

Not to mention that you already admitted lower cap. magazines wouldnt lower crime (sorry if I didnt word that verbatim)

Of course.

1. I can't conceive of the circumstances in which your first question would occur. Certainly none of the current proposed measures, even the ones I disagree with, would come close to justifying armed resistance. I also don't believe that even if armed resistance ever did become justified, it would be at all effective. Outside of that, I'm not sure how to answer you.

2. I think I was able to read every example given, and in my opinion, they were far from conclusive that high cap magazines are necessary to defend against home invasion. That being said, however, I can't support the ban any longer because I don't believe it's enforceable. I remain convinced that if it was enforceable, it would save lives. But with the millions of 30 + magazines already in existence, and with the new printing technology, I don't believe a new ban would make any difference at the current time. I remain strongly in favor of universal background checks, along with national registration of all firearms, and I don't believe either would violate the 2nd Amendment.

 

[slamfirev10]

join date 1/25/13 and having "consistently closed (my) previous threads", hmmmm

 

[timmy4]

Personally the time for debate is over. Folks for the most part have picked their sides, liberty or submission. I'm personally done talking to the antis. Now I want to thwart them at every turn possible and show them that any law they pass can be circumvented. I ordered my 3D printer and am waiting on it to arrive to print my 30rd AR mags. So I can test them along with the ones I built out of aluminum sheeting purchased at a local hardware store. The followers and springs were bought online but I've drawn up the followers on CAD.

You have your position. I have mine. And I'm not budging, no way, now how. I don't have any use for antis or their politics unless they are handing me money and that only lasts as long as they are putting money in my handing and not doing anything else.

The issue of guns may be at the forefront, but why is that? Who is setting the agenda? Who is making it a conversation? Oh right, antis are. Pro-RKBA folks want to talk about other more important things that the Obama and Democrats have failed miserably at. They can't create confidence in businesses to create jobs, but they can attack the Constitution. They can't create a budget or get spending under control, but they can attack cosmetic features on a firearm. Fix the rest of the problems then come to the table.

Till then, I can only assume the government is too incompetent to accomplish anything, and protecting me by destroying my rights seems rather idiotic, like most of what Obama and Democrats have failed to do. Idiotic.

Fair enough. I would wish you good luck, but since I disagree so strongly with your overall position I can't do that. I hope that you come to realize that most of those opposed to you on these specific issues love freedom and this country as much as you do. Be well.

 

[timmy4]

join date 1/25/13 and having "consistently closed (my) previous threads", hmmmm

There were 2 threads. What I mean by "consistently closed" is that they were temporarily closed whenever I had to leave the website for any length of time, and then when I returned I had to petition to open them again. I'd like to avoid that with this thread if it's at all possible.

 

[Solo]

That being said, however, I can't support the ban any longer because I don't believe it's enforceable. I remain convinced that if it was enforceable, it would save lives.

Effects of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban
Consequences of assault weapons use

A central argument for special regulation of assault weapons and large capacity magazines is that they facilitate the rapid firing of high numbers of shots, which allows offenders to inflict more wounds on more persons in a short period of time, thereby increasing the expected number of injuries and deaths per criminal use. The study examined trends in the following consequences of gun use: gun murders, victims per gun homicide incident, wounds per gunshot victim, and, to a lesser extent, gun murders of police.

There were several reasons to expect, at best, a modest ban effect on criminal gun injuries and deaths. First, studies before the ban generally found that between less than 1 and 8 percent of gun crimes involved assault weapons, depending on the specific definition and data source used.

Although limited evidence suggests that semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines are used in 20 to 25 percent of these gun crimes, it is not clear how often large capacity magazines actually turn a gun attack into a gun
murder.

Second, offenders could replace the banned guns with legal substitutes or other unbanned semiautomatic weapons to commit their crimes. Third, the schedule for this study set out in the legislation limited the power of the statistical analyses to
detect worthwhile ban effects that may have occurred. Given the limited use of the banned guns and magazines in gun crimes, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on outcomes such as the gun murder rate is almost certainly too small to detect statistically because the congressionally mandated timeframe for the study effectively limited postban data collection to, at most, 24 months (and only 1 calendar year for annual data series).

There's more in the document, and it makes for informative reading.

 

[9MMare]

Of course.

1. I can't conceive of the circumstances in which your first question would occur. Certainly none of the current proposed measures, even the ones I disagree with, would come close to justifying armed resistance. I also don't believe that even if armed resistance ever did become justified, it would be at all effective. Outside of that, I'm not sure how to answer you.

2. I think I was able to read every example given, and in my opinion, they were far from conclusive that high cap magazines are necessary to defend against home invasion. That being said, however, I can't support the ban any longer because I don't believe it's enforceable. I remain convinced that if it was enforceable, it would save lives. But with the millions of 30 + magazines already in existence, and with the new printing technology, I don't believe a new ban would make any difference at the current time. I remain strongly in favor of universal background checks, along with national registration of all firearms, and I don't believe either would violate the 2nd Amendment.

You didnt like my reference to Ireland's Troubles but I pointed out that the disruption to their society would easily be reflected in America today, critically damaging our economy....all it would take would be a few instances of 'resistance'...and Americans would limit their travelling, curtail their activities outside the home, stop spending their money, stop going to sporting events, etc etc etc. Our economy cannot take any further damage....and both sides of the aisle know it.

And since you didnt actually address the anecdotal AND statistical data regarding the expenditure and effectiveness of bullets in gun fights....you chose to cop out on another angle (so you can remain 'right' but change your mind because 'it's useless to enforce lower limits').

 

[mljdeckard]

*yawns*

 

[timmy4]

I would like to hear your opinion on Warren v District of Columbia.

I'm no lawyer, and not too familiar. I note that it was a 4-3 decision. My initial response is that I don't think I agree with it.

I don't own guns and don't plan on ever owning guns. Therefore, I would like to live in a society where I am protected by the police. If according to the law as it currently stands, I don't live in such a society right now, then I would like to change the law so that I do live in such a society.

Beyond that, if your implication is that this ruling gives added rights to gun-owners by default, that's something we can debate further.

 

[timmy4]

Effects of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban
Consequences of assault weapons use


There's more in the document, and it makes for informative reading.

Even when I was in favor of the ban on high caps, it was never my contention that they would have any impact on crime in general. I wanted them in order to reduce casualties in specific mass shooting situations. Admittedly, mass shootings are extremely rare, but I believed at the time that if the shooter was limited to a lower cap magazine it would save lives. I still believe that; but I don't know how to make it happen.

 

[Solo]

I don't own guns and don't plan on ever owning guns. Therefore, I would like to live in a society where I am protected by the police. If according to the law as it currently stands, I don't live in such a society right now, then I would like to change the law so that I do live in such a society.

The police do not have the time, money, or manpower to be your personal bodyguards along with everything else they do. It would be nice if they could, but that cannot happen. There s one police officer for every 256 citizens in our country; how can they protect us all the instant they are needed?

Allowing the police to be responsible for every instance where they failed to protect someone would also bankrupt law enforcement, because no matter how hard they try, they cannot protect everyone.

If you wish to change the law so that they are responsible for your own personal safety, that is your prerogative, but I must ask: how would they do it?

Beyond that, if your implication is that this ruling gives added rights to gun-owners by default, that's something we can debate further.

I think it shows that, when it comes down to it, you are responsible for your own personal safety - at least for the amount of time it takes a police car to arrive on scene. And in that time, you might want something closer to an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine than a double barreled shotgun.

Even when I was in favor of the ban on high caps, it was never my contention that they would have any impact on crime in general. I wanted them in order to reduce casualties in specific mass shooting situations. Admittedly, mass shootings are extremely rare, but I believed at the time that if the shooter was limited to a lower cap magazine it would save lives. I still believe that; but I don't know how to make it happen.

Like what, 10 round magazines for semiautomatic weapons, pump action shotguns instead of semiautomatic ones, and so forth?

 

[9MMare]

Even when I was in favor of the ban on high caps, it was never my contention that they would have any impact on crime in general. I wanted them in order to reduce casualties in specific mass shooting situations. Admittedly, mass shootings are extremely rare, but I believed at the time that if the shooter was limited to a lower cap magazine it would save lives. I still believe that; but I don't know how to make it happen.

Do you think that the trade-offs, after the info provided to you, would make it more likely that the high cap magazines would have the potential to save MORE lives than occur in the extremely rare mass shootings?

I dont have data on that....it's just a question.

My perspective is that it punishes law-abiding people, putting them at a disadvantage against criminals (who will have whatever guns and magazines and other numbers they choose).

 

[timmy4]

You didnt like my reference to Ireland's Troubles but I pointed out that the disruption to their society would easily be reflected in America today, critically damaging our economy....all it would take would be a few instances of 'resistance'...and Americans would limit their travelling, curtail their activities outside the home, stop spending their money, stop going to sporting events, etc etc etc. Our economy cannot take any further damage....and both sides of the aisle know it.

And since you didnt actually address the anecdotal AND statistical data regarding the expenditure and effectiveness of bullets in gun fights....you chose to cop out on another angle (so you can remain 'right' but change your mind because 'it's useless to enforce lower limits').

It's not that I disliked your reference to Ireland; I just didn't find it applicable. I still don't. Furthermore, using our current economic troubles is rather irrelevant, since we're nowhere near the point where armed resistance to the government would be at all justified. And I hope for all our sakes we never get to that point. If we do, I imagine economic concerns will be the least of our worries.

Also, I wasn't trying to cop out. I simply do not find your "statistical data" to be as decisive as you obviously do.

 

[hso]

then when I returned I had to petition to open them again.

Timmy,

They were closed to keep them from being flooded while you were away and opened when you let the staff know you were back online. The use of "petition" is a bit hyperbolic, or at least dramatic, when what was done was just directing traffic.

 

[Xfire68]

high cap magazines

Those that wish to ban these magazines keep calling them "High Capacity Magazines" when they are not. They are standard capacity magazines for these firearms.

11-19 rounds for semi-auto pistols is common standard size. 30rd is standard for the AR 15.

 

[CLP]

Fair enough. I would wish you good luck, but since I disagree so strongly with your overall position I can't do that. I hope that you come to realize that most of those opposed to you on these specific issues love freedom and this country as much as you do. Be well.

Loving freedom and knowing what it takes to ensure the continuity of freedom are two different things.

 

[tarosean]

Furthermore, using our current economic troubles is rather irrelevant

How so??? Considering Fienstein and crew want to shut down a 56 billion dollar industry.

 

[timmy4]

The police do not have the time, money, or manpower to be your personal bodyguards along with everything else they do. It would be nice if they could, but that cannot happen. There s one police officer for every 256 citizens in our country; how can they protect us all the instant they are needed?

Allowing the police to be responsible for every instance where they failed to protect someone would also bankrupt law enforcement, because no matter how hard they try, they cannot protect everyone.

If you wish to change the law so that they are responsible for your own personal safety, that is your prerogative, but I must ask: how would they do it?


I think it shows that, when it comes down to it, you are responsible for your own personal safety - at least for the amount of time it takes a police car to arrive on scene. And in that time, you might want something closer to an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine than a double barreled shotgun.


Like what, 10 round magazines for semiautomatic weapons, pump action shotguns instead of semiautomatic ones, and so forth?

1. I don't expect the police to be at my beck and call, so maybe I wrote that wrong. I live in Orange County, California, in a nice suburb in Huntington Beach, and I generally feel safe. I do have an alarm on my house, and I'm careful at night, but I don't feel I need a gun to be safe. But that's just me. Some of my neighbors do feel the need to have guns, and that's their right, of course.

2. I continue to believe that, in at least some of these mass shooting situations, if the shooter had lower capacity magazines, lives would have been saved.

 

[holdencm9]

I don't own guns and don't plan on ever owning guns. Therefore, I would like to live in a society where I am protected by the police. If according to the law as it currently stands, I don't live in such a society right now, then I would like to change the law so that I do live in such a society.

The fact of the matter is you are never going to be "protected by the police." Up to and including the point where you live in a police state. The right to self-defense is God-given and constitutionally-protected. But at the same time, it is a personal responsibility. YOU are responsible to protect yourself and those you love. If you would rather live in a police nanny state and hope that the police will be there 24/7 to protect you, then that is your prerogative, but the fact remains, they will never be there 1,440 minutes of every day, and it is MY prerogative to have the means to defend myself as best as I possibly can.

 

[9MMare]

It's not that I disliked your reference to Ireland; I just didn't find it applicable. I still don't. Furthermore, using our current economic troubles is rather irrelevant, since we're nowhere near the point where armed resistance to the government would be at all justified. And I hope for all our sakes we never get to that point. If we do, I imagine economic concerns will be the least of our worries.

Also, I wasn't trying to cop out. I simply do not find your "statistical data" to be as decisive as you obviously do.

I didnt see you even attempt to counter the information (anecdotal and statistical) on the effectiveness of bullets stopping attackers. So you just dismissed it because you didnt want to accept it.

As for the economy not be relevant...of course it's relevant. It wouldnt have to even be in as fragile state as it is now. Our economy depends on a FREE moving and FREE spending society.

If the govt, under whatever circumstances might lead to our need to resist it (I wasnt talking about any immediate need).....took that into consideration, they would indeed think carefully before dismissing the damage a few domestic terrorist events would have. The 'threat' of our arms is real...even if the ability to win is not.

 

[timmy4]

Timmy,

They were closed to keep them from being flooded while you were away and opened when you let the staff know you were back online. The use of "petition" is a bit hyperbolic, or at least dramatic, when what was done was just directing traffic.

OK. But respectfully, what difference would it make if they are "flooded" when I'm not here? Doesn't bother me any. Eventually people will get bored of responding to me if I'm not around to respond to them. And then they'll stop and wait till I return. What's wrong with that?

(If there is something wrong with it, then I don't mind contacting you. It's not a huge complaint on my part.)

 

[MagnumDweeb]

Armed resistance to the government would be futile and foolish. Armed resistance to the constituents of the tyrannical government, the Quislings, and their subsequent annihilation would be a more plausible and achievable goal. A pro-liberty faction would only have to commit so much so much horror to bring the pro-tyrants to the peace table once the pro-tyrants realized the pro-liberty faction was prepared to starve them out, shut down their power grids, leave no structure of support standing, and commit wholesale liquidation should the need arise. All the while avoiding the armed security units of the pro-tyranny faction.

Si vis pacem, para bellum