Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by timmy4, Jan 25, 2013.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Another example: The battle for Athens
"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".
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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 to prevent or reduce crime.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
(snip - get the rest of these)
Firearms (type unknown)..................2,035......15.66%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,772......13.63%
Hands, feet, etc...........................745.......5.73%
The 6-year trend in rifle homicides, 2005-2010:
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.
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"?
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.