Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just don't believe that it would be effective on a macro level, nor has it ever been.

In other words, private citizens can be effective using firearms to protect themselves against home invasion or from a corrupt local government. But I don't believe they can be effective protecting themselves against a national government.

The fact that it works on the micro level should be sufficient to validate the importance of the 2A.

WRT the "macro" level, if armed resistance does work on the micro level then it can provide the kernel of a successful revolution on the macro level. That initial and core resistance has lead internal forces to question the validity of firing on their own people and the validity of the government opposed by the revolutionaries. This weakens the illegal government directly and triggering defections to the revolutionaries give greater arms and support to the revolution. The same kernel of revolution also leads to outside support like we saw take place in the Arab Spring and is taking place in Syria.

Even in those cases where the revolution is crushed it has lead to changes in government that improve the freedoms of the citizens and bring those nations closer to democratic government. The Kurds achieved partial success and a level of autonomy. The Algerians pushed the French into autonomy and eventually independence. You don't have to win everything to have made a difference in the course of a nation.
 
Last edited:
timmy4, you put too much faith in the government.

They have failed us multiple times. Unable to balance a budget, stop the war on drugs, provide good schooling, and now Medicare and social security are in trouble.

During a disaster, including the LA riots and Katrina, they were unable to provide security. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not obligated to come to your house if 911 is called.

Something to think about.
 
Great question! Now we get to the heart of the matter. You believe that government tries to control your firearms because they want to control YOU. I believe that government tries to regulate, not control your firearms because they honestly believe in some cases, as I do, that there are ways to either eliminate some of these terrible mass shootings or at least make them less deadly.

Now I'm sure you will disagree with that last statement. Go ahead and do so; disagree all you want, but do not make the error of mistaking the motives of those who oppose you. With very few exceptions, they are well-meaning, and do not have the ulterior motives you and others ascribe to them.

As I see the matter;

I tend to agree that a lot of government officials, probably most of them, are not concerned with instating a tyrant. They are trying to "make everyone safer." We believe they are misinformed about what gun control in general will actually accomplish. I think it's been covered why (long thread) that most of us disagree that the proposed measures to restrict firearms will be ineffective at reducing violence or making mass shooting less deadly. Someone hell bent on destroying a body of people will find creative ways to do it. The AR-15 is the hot topic right now, but these mass killings have happened plenty of times with handguns. Tim McVeigh killed 168 people with bombs. Terrorists killed 3000 people with airplanes on 9/11/01. Bad people do bad things, restricting weapons from a large body of law-abiding public has not and will not be effective in stopping this.

This is a morbid thought, but I think it's valid. Do you think the goblin Adam Lanza would not have killed 20 children had he not had access to an AR-15? Or 30 round mags? Mag changes happen quickly, and children aren't going to stop you. He trapped 20 6-year-olds in a classroom... he could have done it with a crowbar.

Getting back to tyranny...I'm not sure paranoia is a very good description, governments have a long history of killing their subjects. The fear of some and to an extent myself is that while the current government may want to remove firearms and impose restrictions with the goal or preventing violence, what about the next officials, and the next? You might get a shift towards tyranny and couple that with an unarmed citizenry, and I find it hard to believe that it is not easier for a government to slaughter unarmed subjects than armed ones. The authors of our constitution, with the events of the revolution fresh in their minds, certainly thought that an armed public would be sizable deterrent. I guess we tend to agree with them. If regulations aren't going to curb violence, why risk tyranny on top of fit?
 
timmy4, you put too much faith in the government.

.

And IMO, every thing that you give over to the govt to fix or take care of is freedom you give up. (And realistically, wont necessarily make you safer...in the case of firearms, it only gives criminals more power and punishes the law-abiding)
 
I would consider myself the less paranoid gun owner, and contrary to the stereotype I don't think most gun guys could invision taking up arms against the government in their life time. However keep in mind that just over 150 years ago a civil war was fought on our soil. Look at the world around you anthat d tell me our children, or grandchildren or great grandchildren will contine to live in the same cushy lifestyle we enjoy. Come back to now and tell me how effective the government is at preventing looting and rampant crime after a national disaster like katrina. This is all in the spirit of the 2nd amendment.

You challenge our fears of a slippery slope, do you not see the onerous restrictions placed on europeans, or the incremental laws of our own country?

Yes the 2nd like other amendments is subject to restriction, but only after a very strict test. Compare the number on exceptions to the other 9 bill of rights and then compare that to the number of excemptions to "shall not be infringed." Modern technology btw is all covered by the other amendments. How can you tell me that the assault weapons ban passes the strict test required by the amendments without showing me the clear facts that this law would actually make this country safer. Tell me why it makes sence that dove world outreach can protest at soldiers funerals but a rifle isn't covered by the 2nd because it has a pistol grip. Rather than ask us why the 2nd is so unpenetrable, ask yoursellf why you think it is so disposable. How many criminals escape justice and kill again because of the 4th, or plan criminal activity because they can use computers , freedom is not without its price, but I would venture to say you would quickly espouse the virtues of the others, so whyy not the 2nd?
 
8. I don't know what you mean by life experiences. Since you asked, I can tell you that I have been to firing ranges and to gun shows. I have close friends who own guns. I never have, but my personal fear of them stems from about 10 years ago when I was carjacked; I had a gun stuck close to my head. I recognize that my fear is irrational. I try not to let it affect my judgment

That would scare the crap out of any one of us. Any one. The problem is that the gun is not what you should have been afraid of. The human holding it is who you should have feared. The gun is just an inanimate piece of machinery, it can only do what it is told. That is why the focus needs to be on people. That is the real answer. And it's not an easy one, that is for sure.
 
I have a question for you timmy, how would you feel if this debates was about the first amendment and the government was saying you could only use it 7 or 10 words at a time and then had to take a break before you could use it again?
 
timmy4 said:
That being said: it strikes me that about 80% of the discussion in this thread has been devoted to the question of a tyranny, and how gun restrictions would either help lead to a tyranny or prevent you as private citizens from combating a tyranny or both. People have brought up Nazi Germany, the Warsaw Ghetto, slavery, and other examples. I want to emphasize that, among my friends who support forms of gun control, this subject never comes up except as a matter of derision towards you folks. It makes liberals and independents believe that you guys are extremist and paranoid. I hope I'm not insulting anyone, but I'm trying to be honest here. In terms of trying to convince people like me, you are much more convincing when you argue the ineffectiveness of the proposals. Even if I disagree with some of those arguments as well, they are rational arguments that people on the "other side" can wrap their heads around.


Look, I don't care if it never comes up among your friends in a discussion. That's not on it's face evidence it's never happened; not happened to people we know - even if your friends don't know them; and think it won't ever happen again.

OK, you threw your Jewish heritage on the table for discussion.


Allow me to throw my Irish heritage onto the table for discussion.


My ancestors fled Northen Ireland after British political and religious differences, enforced by military oppression, starved our families out and they spent what little money they had to buy sea passage to come here, to America.

They arrived here after a 2 month trip across the North Atlantic. They were forced by an unwelcoming nation to settle in Western PA. We were oppressed by those who ran the local governments to either accept menial, even deadly jobs, to make a living when we got here, or go someplace else to eat. American's didn't want the Irish coming here to take jobs at rates less than the current rate that most "native Americans" would accept, so they went West, into the frontier, which at the time was Western PA and Indians were still raiding communities here.

So my ancestral family farmed. Some of my family did well. Decades later my Godmother - it's a Catholic thing you might not appreciate - my Dad's sister, opened a gas station/conveniece store with her husband in the 70's in a very rural village in Western PA that she and her husband raised my cousins on.

One night someone came in to rob that store. He used a shotgun, and shot my Godmother in the robbery.

Now you might think we'd become gun control advocates, right?

You'd be wrong.

One of her sons opened a gun store in Western PA that sold all kinds of guns, and did it very successfully. To this day my 80 year old aunt doesn't blame access to guns as the reason she was shot. She blames the person who decided to be a criminal. She was proud of her son, and my cousin, who owned a successful gun shop.


Gun owners are not the problem. Criminals are. And you cannot control criminals through gun control laws because criminals will do what they do and will not care about a law that says they cannot have a gun when they go victimize people.


So, my ancestors fled from Ireland - not very far removed ancestors I might add, I can speak with an Irirsh accent if I chose to because my Dad's father spoke with it - they came here to flee political oppression. And they armed themselves when they got here vowing to never let it happen again.


Now my mother's family is also part Irish. However - her step-father fled from Germany in the 1940s, came here, and eventually married my mother's mother. He saw what happened to his family who couldn't leave.

I have a very strong connection to oppression, and oppressive governments through my family, and they vowed they would never again experience that when they got here. They armed themselves to the teeth.


Don't be fooled by thinking we're special. Don't be fooled that America can't go through what my family went through. Germany and Ireland are modern nations, and they endured very oppressive governments.

All of Europe did during the 30's and 40's. And those caught behind the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Union suffered terribly for 50 years if they weren't part of the establishment and agreed to their political goals.


It's hubris to think history cannot repeat itself in "your country". My ancestral family never thought they'd be subjugated like they were, either. But they were. First in their homelands, and later when they arrived in America.

We are not so special to expect that something a bunch of dead guys 250 years ago write will be respected by a tyrant sometime in the future. Only gullible people think that way.

Consider the third Amendment -
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


The dead white guys who wrote that, and got it accepted by a majority of states, did so because that was how oppressive a tyrannical government could become. That was how oppressive a tyrannical government had become. And I can show you citation after citation where both British and American units forcibly occupied homes during the Revolution, killed and ate the livestock to survive the winters, and those homeowners got paultry recompense, if any at all.

Often they were told, "which side do you support?" And if you supported their side, you "gave" your resources to the cause. If you didn't, they were seized so you couldn't use them to "aid the enemy's cause".

That should give you some insight as to what was on their minds when they debated the language over the second Amendment.
 
Re post #185,

I often point out to people that the process of confiscating arms from houses would compromise the entire Bill of Rights, INCLUDING the Third Amendment. Someone would have to occupy previously searched homes to prevent shuffling hidden guns around.
 
The American Revolution would have been lost if not for help from France.
Dear Timmy, the American revolution was indeed augmented by Polish, French and other European military help, but the majority of it was fought by farmers and other untrained military folks shooting behind trees in a new type of warfare.

The contribution of the French came quite late in the game. Placing an artificial constraint of no access to military allies denies the sacrifice of all those that brought the French to America in the first place. They would not have come if we were not worthy allies. Their main contribution was a naval blockade that hindered reinforcements.

Speculating that the revolution would have been lost without their help is simply that. The will of the people against their oppressive rulers would have pressed on even without the help of the French. In such, they shortened the war, but it was indeed the American's that won the war.

Israel hed off the Arabs in 1948. If you wish to diminish the importance of an armed population, go ahead. The Swiss have prevented invasions by this as well.
 
Tim, So far you've been civil and have not been troll-like. Thank you.

Why do you think our forefathers thought so highly of the right to bear arms that they made it #2, right after freedom of religion, speech and the press? Why didn't they make it #9 or #10 or add it later? Are you aware that the straw that broke the backs of the original colonists was the fact that the rulers in England wanted to disarm us so we couldn't resist their tyranny?

They specifically used the words "shall not be infringed" when it was written.

I do, however, support a few proposed gun control measures which I consider mild but effective,

That's infringement.

As far as magazine capacity. You ask why have 30? Well, many states already cap it at 10 rounds. A few weeks ago, New York state passed a law to make it 7. Why 7? Well, it's less than 10 I guess. The point is, once you have a specific number as a law in place, they can lower it at will until it is one. Paranoia? Ask the residents of New York State if it's a fact or paranoia. Give them an inch and in a few years it will be a mile.

A comparison? We have freedom of religion. Many religious zealots have anti-American participants which they have used to kill us time and again. Why doesn't America just ban any religion that has roots in anti-American nations? It's just a small restriction to protect Americans from terrorism. Just one religion, no big deal, right? Well, it's illegal under the Constitution of the United States, that's why. You'd be punishing millions of law abiding Americans for the crime of a few by deporting them or banning their religion. It's anti-American to do that just like it's anti-American to put any restrictions on the right to bear arms, or free speech or freedom of the press, etc.

Why? Because it is a right established when this country was formed to protect us from threats whether abroad or at home. It's not negotiable to people who are afraid of guns.
 
Timmy,

Be very afraid of your government and what it can do when bad leadership is present. I have served in the military. I was in a position that had a lot of influence and power over other troops. Over half of the guys that did the same job as me abused the power that they were given. Some did it to please those above them and most did it just because they could. These were men who were normal people when around others who were not their subordinates. But when they were around the people they were in charge of, they took advantage of them anyway they legally could. Physical abuse didn't happen because they knew there would be legal consequences. Verbal and emotional abuse ran rampant. It was even encouraged many times by our leadership. Many times, bragging afterwards would occur about how bad they tore down a troop.

I have close family who has been involved in interrogations with terrorist. The stories of how the suspected terrorist were treated makes me embarrassed sometimes to be called an American. These are people who have been trained to do this to people by our government. And they feel it was appropriate simply because our government told them it was okay. And they rationalize it because the "terrorists" weren't Americans.

This abuse of power doesn't just apply to military. Many of us have seen this done by bosses, little league coaches, law enforcement, preachers, politicians, etc etc. Do not trust your government to be good and honorable. There are some very good people who will not fall in line when our government wants to abuse us, but there are a lot of eager people who would love to be handed the reigns of power and abuse those below them. Look at what happened to law abiding citizens after hurricane Katrina. Many Americans have submitted to the idea that the government owns them and they will submit easily to tyranny.

Do not trust your government. Their is a very important reason the Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights. They experienced it first hand. If our right to bear arms is infringed (restricted even a little), they will keep squeezing the restrictions tighter until no one has the ability to resist the tyranny that comes after they have full power over the people. If our defense tools (also known as pistols, ar15s, etc) are removed, it will not be a matter of if, but when, they will do bad things to their own citizens.

Also, don't think of an AR15 as an assault weapon. It is a defense tool or defense weapon. Assault weapons seems to apply to weapons that are more commonly used to assault people with. Statistics do not show the AR15 to be something to be commonly used for assaulting people.
 
6. I don't know anyone in this forum. I believe, strongly, that most people who own guns are law-abiding citizens, and I have no reason to believe otherwise regarding people in this forum. Since I haven't even come close to making such an accusation, I'm a little bit surprised by your question.

my personal fear of them stems from about 10 years ago when I was carjacked; I had a gun stuck close to my head.

I would like to know, if you truly believe this what would be the point of limiting us? After all you freely admit you do not believe we are the problem.

As for your experience. This criminal broke the law when he used a firearm to carjack you correct? What makes you believe he will obey a law stating he can only have 10 shot magazines while doing so?
 
Last edited:
3. As an American citizen, I reserve the right to give my opinion about any law or proposed law. That includes all issues of gun ownership.
Please don't confuse laws with Constitutional Rights.
If you allow politicians to infringe upon your Constitutional Rights by passing more laws then you are nothing more than a collaborator.


4. You live in a civilized society, not out in the woods. That gives everyone else who lives in said society the right to question what you do. It doesn't necessarily give them the right to enforce their will upon you, but it does give them the right to question.
Wrong!!!
The U.S. justice system was founded on the "presumption of innocence". No one has the "right" to question what any other citizen does without any EVIDENCE of criminal activity.
If you think that citizens spying upon their fellow citizens is just fine and dandy, then you have no clue as to what real freedom is all about.

5. My fear of firearms is immaterial to the discussion of what should be done about them.
Wrong!!!
Your fear of firearms has clearly affected your opinion of firearms, firearm owners, and the Second Amendment.
Because of your personal fears you cannot be impartial and unbiased in your opinions.
Only when you overcome your fear will you be able to see the issue as it truly is.


I wrote that to provide an honest evaluation of my own personal biases so that people could understand where I was coming from. It does not make me any more correct nor incorrect in my opinions on this issue.
Wrong again!
You think that your personal biases trump the U.S. Constitutional Bill of Rights....

Did your father or your mother teach you this notion?


6.....I believe, strongly, that most people who own guns are law-abiding citizens,
Why do you believe this?


7. No, I have not served in the military. My father and grandfather did. I have great respect for anyone who serves or has served. I thank them for their service and for protecting my freedom.
THIS is immaterial to the discussion.

And yes, I have served and am a veteran of this nation's wars.


, but my personal fear of them stems from about 10 years ago when I was carjacked; I had a gun stuck close to my head. I recognize that my fear is irrational. I try not to let it affect my judgment.
Instead of trying to infringe upon my Second Amendment Constitutional Rights, seek some resolution in your own life.
 
Also, didn't Saddam Hussein kill hundreds of thousands of citizens of Iraq because they were of a different tribe? Of all the genocides mentioned, how armed were the millions who were slaughtered? Maybe the present dictator didn't disarm them but the fact that they had little or no arms made the genocide easy. Maybe they were disarmed decades before. Maybe they didn't see a "need" for arms but they weren't armed, for whatever reason, and they were murdered by their leaders. History is full of unarmed or lightly armed people being slaughtered for thinking a different way. How many of them were armed when they were lined up around trenches they dug as their graves and then executed? This is as recent as the 1980s. I call that modern times.
 
This is as recent as the 1980s. I call that modern times.

More recent than that in the Balkans.

An example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovas_massacre


As a related tidbit, what few civilian arms there were in the former Yugoslavia were registered with the local governments. The JNA sometimes provided this information to the Serbs so they could prioritize the murder of those individuals known to be armed.
 
Last edited:
9mm Mare said:
He has every right to be afraid of guns.

Some people are afraid of dogs.

I'm afraid of spiders.

He claims that's not his motivating factor in his journey of discovery.

And even if it was, it is not a legitimate reason for curtailing the rights of others.

And he's been pretty respectful.
It's not wrong to have a differing opinion. In fact, it is just as Constitutionally protected as the Second Amendment. How could I support one and ignore the other? That is hypocrisy that I will not stoop to.

Sad to say, but your background can have a huge impact on how you view guns. I have literally always been around them. I learned to shoot before I could tie my own shoes - literally, that is the truth. Of course I would see gun ownership as natural and essential. One of my roommates is not as liberal as I am, but he is very anti-gun. Where I see a tool for self defense, recreation, and and the preservation of liberty, he sees an implement that is used in the commission of crimes.
In his words, guns are used to kill "people who look like me," meaning African American men. He explained that the people he knew who had guns used them to commit crimes and intimidate others. He said that when someone in his family showed a gun, such as one of his uncles, everyone knew that it was time to stop arguing or it would soon get escalated. In contrast, when someone in my family brings out a gun, it is to show off a new scope or something like that.

There really are two different worlds in this nation. We have to find a way to reconcile them or we're all screwed.
 
Last edited:
May have already been answered, but here we go.

Timmy,

The term "gun show loophole" is a felonious term used to scare people unfamiliar with firearms and gun shows. What they claim to be a "loophole" is actually 100% legal and totally within the law. In other words, there is NO such thing as a gun show loophole.

Another felonious term the anti-gunners use is "assault weapon". It too is used to instill fear into the hearts of those who are ignorant of firearms. The term "assault weapon" refers to any military rifle that has a selector switch which allows the shooter to select between single fire, burst fire, and fully automatic. Very few people own such firearms due to the expense. I am talking at least $5,000 and up for such a firearm. Plus there is a lot of extra red tape and expense in order to even obtain the right to buy such a firearm. These are known as Fully Automatic firearms and they are NOT easy to obtain. Such rifles would be the M-16 or various other weapons used by our military, and a TRUE AK-47/74 used by the military of various countries all over the world.

What this horrible administration is referring to is actually "military-styled" firearms. These are not the same as "assault weapons". They have no selector switch other than the fire and safety switch which is found on virtually every firearm in America. In other words, one trigger pull, one round fired. These firearms are known as Semi-Auto firearms. Such firearms would be the AR-15 and the "scary" AK"M"-47/74. Do the anti-gun politicians know this? Yes, they do. They count on the ignorance of their anti-gun constituents to demand that they carry their agenda through.

You said that guns scare you. Want to know how to get over that fear? Education. Most of what scares us can be overcome by education. Take a CCW class. Learn about firearms, firearm safety, how to load, unload, shoot, and to take care of any problems you might have with the firearm, such as a failure to feed or a failure to eject issue.

Now keep in mind that the old timers usually refer to semi-auto firearms as automatics. Do not confuse this with the term "Fully Automatic". The old timers are referring to the gun's ability to "automatically" load the next available round into the chamber after the original round is fired, and nothing more.
 
I am going to avoid a lot of personal comment and ask that the OP (timmy4)read one government document to help him understand the 2nd . It is a document commisioned by the Senate and is the most comprehensive study done on the 2nd amendment. (you asked why bring up the 2nd)

You might not like the 2nd amendment ,but then you don't get to pick and choose Constitutionaly protected natural rights. By Law we are a Constitutional Republic, and it takes more the 51% to over ride Constitutional mandates.

Your welcome as an American to work at repealing the 2nd amendment, but bastardizing it to meet person comfort, is in fact Infringment.

Read this report :


The 1982 U.S. Senate Report on the 2nd Amendment
97th Congress
2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
--------

R E P O R T

OF THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 1982

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

----

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

88-618 O WASHINGTON : 1982
 
Timmy,

I too would like to acknowledge your respect and bravery for being willing to come to this forum and ask honest inquisitive questions. If you are near central texas and want some range experience, pm me and I would love to help out. If you are not near me, maybe someone with the heart of a teacher would be willing to take you to the range. One can never have enough skills and tools in their bag to defend their family and themselves.

I think this thread is good that you started it. Maybe someone who is on the fence about our way of thinking will read it and see how many times government has shown not to be trustworthy and why it is necessary to arm yourself.
 
As far as "high-cap" or "extended" magazines go, this too is disinformation also used to scare the anti-gun crowd. For instance, if you buy a:

Glock 17 9mm. It comes with two or three 17 round magazines. These magazines are NOT "high-cap" or "extended". They are Standard magazines. It's what the Glock 17 comes with.

CZ SP01 9mm. It comes with two 19 round magazines. Again, these are standard magazines and what the gun comes with.

AR-15. Although they do come with a 30 round magazine, this is standard for the AR-15.

AK"M"-47/74. A 30 round magazine is also standard.

Bottom line, it doesn't matter how many rounds a magazine holds. If it comes with the firearm, it's a standard magazine.

Yes, it is true that for a number of firearms, you can get extended magazines. However, the phrase that's all the rage today, asked by Hillary during her Benghazi testimony in front of the SFRC, "What difference does it make?" :rolleyes:

I hope this post as well as my earlier post helps you to understand the difference between truth and disinformation. If you are in the Ozarks, send me a pm. I'd be all to happy to take you to the range. You'll find all kinds of helpful gun enthusiasts there.
 
Last edited:
Some of you have been downright rude in this thread. I don't condone it, but I understand that you feel beat up by the other side of the issue. Give this guy a break. He has been nothing but polite. As far as the historical perspective and the arguing concerning genocide, it really is leading nowhere. Those people are dead. You could argue for another eight pages about how the guns might have helped or how they didn't help. It is easy to revise history as our vision is 20/20 looking back. I was surprised, however; that no one brought up the USSR concerning genocide and gun control.

To Timmy. I use a standard capacity (30 round) AR 15 semi-automatic firearm for target shooting and self-protection. I use a 20 round magazine for competition. I use a 5 round magazine for hunting in my AR. If I am warding off an aggressor or several aggressors, I want to know that I have enough ammunition to defend myself. This is the exact reason most police use standard capacity magazines in rifles and pistols. I choose this particular firearm because it is accurate and can be maintained in my garage with minimal tools. I choose a 30 round magazine for that rifle because the police do not have an obligation to protect us. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html In case of civil unrest or a temporary breakdown of law and order, I want a standard capacity magazine for the firearm I choose to ward off individuals who might do harm to me or my family. In recent history, these scenarios have played out. Semi-automatic firearms were used to ward of large groups of attackers during the LA riots and during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Understand that I am versed in firearms and know quite well what I need for my particular location. The vast majority of firearms owners who use these rifles use them responsibly. According to a recent NY Times article I read, there have been between 3.3 and 3.5 million AR 15 rifles produced and purchased by civilians. That is only from 1986 to 2009. The AR in particular has been available to the public since 1963. I would estimate the number of standard capacity magazines to be at least 40 million for AR’s if not more. That is not even including the other semi-automatic firearms and magazines their magazines. Standard capacity, or as the media and politicians have started calling them hi capacity magazines are nothing new. They have been around for 100 years. I myself have a WWII Browning Hi Power with a 13 round magazine.

As to the well intentioned politicians trying to protect us. They won't even take the time to learn what features on a firearm are called, but yet they are screaming for a ban. I am a little jaded by politicians at the moment. They only want to pad their political careers. That is the only reason I can think of that they intentionally pass misinformation on to reporters and the well-intended. It has been comical the last couple of weeks.

As far as reasonable restrictions. I think they are in place. We are prohibited from owning rocket launchers, missiles, and nuclear weapons. Machine guns are heavily restricted. We have to submit to a background check to purchase firearms. Felons and the mentally ill are not allowed to have firearms. There are laws on the books to prosecute straw purchasers, even if they only seem to get the miniumum sentences. A ban on a semi-automatic or its "feeding device" aimed at a law abiding citizen is not a reasonable restriction. You mention what the police say in Baltimore. There are plenty of other police chiefs in other states and municipalities who have said they will not enforce the law and are defending these firearms- "high capacity" magazines and all.
 
Last edited:
I don't have much time to spend on this thread just now and, in fact, haven't been able to work my way through all the pages just yet.

However, the first page showed promise...even though the last comment posted before this would indicate that somewhere things took a turn for the rude.

timmy4, I would like to address some of your questions myself later, perhaps with some more recent and "relevant" historical examples for you with respect to many of your questions.

Bear with me though...I've got a weekend full of family activities and work ahead of me in the meantime.

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top