Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

[Tommygunn]

I am in favor of two specific gun control measures: banning high capacity gun magazines, and forcing all sales or transfers of firearms to go through background checks for the proposed buyer so as to enforce existing laws that make it illegal for convicted felons to purchase them. I do not believe that either of these measures infringe upon your right to bear arms.

Please explain why you think ..."crazies" cannot or will not use 30 round magazines in their sprees. I was around during the 94-04 ban and saw no shortage of magazines. They simply became more expensive. It was during that period I obtained many 30 round magazines for my M 1 Carbine. Never had a problem.

Also, why will a "universal" instant check prevent criminals from obtaining guns? Many are stolen; do you realize that there is a large underground black market for guns?
Ask any convict how long it would take for him to get a gun if he were outside prison walls. It's been done. You get answers like "half an hour." These people know where to go.

 

[timmy4]

In the end, why should I care what you BELIEVE? The reality is that the DoJ statistics do not support gun restrictions and I really don't think that I deserve to have my freedoms restricted based upon your phobias.

Seems simple enough to me.

You're free not to care what I believe. But then why are you bothering to post in this thread? I'm trying to have an open discussion here. But if you don't want any part of that, why be here?

 

[Solo]

1. Are AR-15s sold with 30 round magazines as the STANDARD?

Yes.

If we made the 30 round mags illegal, would that be the same as making AR-15s illegal? (That is not my goal.)

No.

Could new AR-15s be sold with a lesser magazine, and what would be the practicality of this move?

Yes, and it would be easy for the manufacturer to ship with a 10 round magazine or no magazine at all. The magazine is a separate component for the AR-15.

And how long have 30 round magazines been for AR-15s?

Since the late 70's, iirc. AR-15s originally came out in 1969 with 20 round magazines.

2. How many AR-15s are there currently in private ownership? How many high caliber magazines are currently out there?

Best estimate? Several million of each.

3. Would any of you agree to a compromise where magazines in excess of 30 were made illegal? (Say 50 or 100).

What would the point be?

 

[timmy4]

Just curious. What is your livelihood? What kind of neighborhood did you come from. What kind of area do you live in now? Tell us more about yourself.

I'm a commercial real estate broker. I live in Orange County, California. Many of my neighbors and close friends are gun owners and some are strong 2nd Amendment adherents. But I prefer discussing these topics on the internet for the very simple reason that this topic is much like abortion or religion: it gets a lot of people touchy. To be frank, I don't mind disagreeing with most of you- even if it makes some of you angry. But in person, discussing these issues can be unpleasant if people don't agree. And I don't want to offend anyone.

 

[SpazC]

OK- I need some information, because I may be changing my mind on the gun magazines- MAYBE. But some things that have been posted here bother me, if true. So I need to confirm them:

1. Are AR-15s sold with 30 round magazines as the STANDARD? If we made the 30 round mags illegal, would that be the same as making AR-15s illegal? (That is not my goal.) Could new AR-15s be sold with a lesser magazine, and what would be the practicality of this move? And how long have 30 round magazines been for AR-15s?

2. How many AR-15s are there currently in private ownership? How many high caliber magazines are currently out there?

3. Would any of you agree to a compromise where magazines in excess of 30 were made illegal? (Say 50 or 100).

Really appreciate the feedback here, thanks.

1 Yes, 20, 30 and even 40 round mags come standard.
2 Its estimated there are over 3 million privately owned AR-15s in the US.
3 No compromise.



Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[timmy4]

Yes.

No.

Yes, and it would be easy for the manufacturer to ship with a 10 round magazine or no magazine at all. The magazine is a separate component for the AR-15.

Since the late 70's, iirc. AR-15s originally came out in 1969 with 20 round magazines.


Best estimate? Several million of each.


What would the point be?

Appreciate the quick and forthright answers. To be honest, the fact that the gun can be modified makes me feel better about my position, but the fact that there are several million out there makes me feel less good. I will consider all of this. But you've got me thinking about it...

 

[Solo]

Actually, I used to live in Orange county, but now go to school in Riverside. Let me know if you ever visit, we could go shooting.

 

[timmy4]

1 Yes, 20, 30 and even 40 round mags come standard.
2 Its estimated there are over 3 million privately owned AR-15s in the US.
3 No compromise.



Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk 2

Why no compromise?

I want to understand you better on this. Are you saying that even if you were personally convinced that such a ban would save lives, you would still be opposed to it?

 

[Warp]

OK- I need some information, because I may be changing my mind on the gun magazines- MAYBE. But some things that have been posted here bother me, if true. So I need to confirm them:

1. Are AR-15s sold with 30 round magazines as the STANDARD? If we made the 30 round mags illegal, would that be the same as making AR-15s illegal? (That is not my goal.) Could new AR-15s be sold with a lesser magazine, and what would be the practicality of this move? And how long have 30 round magazines been for AR-15s?

2. How many AR-15s are there currently in private ownership? How many high caliber magazines are currently out there?

3. Would any of you agree to a compromise where magazines in excess of 30 were made illegal? (Say 50 or 100).

Really appreciate the feedback here, thanks.

1. The standard is either 20 or 30 round magazines, depending on the manufacturer and model. Yes. STANDARD. And that's the way it's always been. 20 and 30 round mags have been around as long as the rifle.

2. No way of knowing. Millions of rifle? Magazines? Untold millions. There are over a million supposedly on backorder at this moment alone.

3. No. No matter the arbitrary set number, it is an infringement. You don't sacrifice rights in a "compromise". Rights are not to be compromised. Shall not be infringed

 

[John3921]

RE: Diannes quote

Here it is for all to enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DKuN2ey80

 

[Warp]

Why no compromise?

RIGHTS are not to be compromised.

Would you like to compromise on your right to a trial by jury?

 

[Solo]

I recalled incorrectly.

Soldier Guiding Helicopter to Safe Landing
Original caption: 11/9/1971-Da Nang, South Vietnam: GI guides helicopter into landing zone during operation in the area five miles west of Da Nang. Troops of "A" Company, First Battalion, 327th Infantry of the 101st Airborne Division, are protecting Da Nang from Communist rocket attacks.

30 round magazines for the AR-15 came out in the early 70's.

 

[browneu]

Why no compromise?

I want to understand you better on this. Are you saying that even if you were personally convinced that such a ban would save lives, you would still be opposed to it?

But there's no evidence it will save lives.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tommygunn]

1. Are AR-15s sold with 30 round magazines as the STANDARD? If we made the 30 round mags illegal, would that be the same as making AR-15s illegal? (That is not my goal.) Could new AR-15s be sold with a lesser magazine, and what would be the practicality of this move? And how long have 30 round magazines been for AR-15s?

To my knowledge all ARs come with 30 round magazines. Making the magazine illegal would not in and of itself make the AR illegal. The law is not yet written and we don't know what it will be. We could wind up with a law making both the mag & the gun illegal.
When the AR was first issued to the army in its M-16 guise (full auto) it had a 20 round magazine. 20 rounders are still out there. I don't know when the 30 round standard was first introduced but it wasn't too long after the 20 round came out. It seems to follow a pattern first observed when the Thompson submachine gun came out; the army first adopted 20 rnd magas, found them wanting, and switched to 30 round mags.

2. How many AR-15s are there currently in private ownership? How many high caliber magazines are currently out there?

Possibly many millions, know real way to know. They have also become much more popular in these last few years. I wouldn't call them high "caliber" magazines. The usual AR is chambered for 5.56mm. That's HARDLY "high" caliber. A count of how many magazines there are is even more difficult than counting the guns.

3. Would any of you agree to a compromise where magazines in excess of 30 were made illegal? (Say 50 or 100).

No. Why?
There are 20,000 gun control laws in America. If you want a compromise then chose one of those laws you can do away with and then ....maybe ....we can compromise.

 

[timmy4]

Unfortunately I have to leave again. Taking my daughters out. Really appreciate the discussion, and you guys have given me much food for thought. Will try to post later this evening if I can.

 

[Solo]

Why no compromise?

I want to understand you better on this. Are you saying that even if you were personally convinced that such a ban would save lives, you would still be opposed to it?

I'm sure the PATRIOT Act made us all safer, but I'm still opposed to many of its more controversial positions.

Also, drone strikes on US citizens abroad, even if they are palling with terrorists.

 

[Warp]

But there's no evidence it will save lives.

...not that the potential to save lives is even a worthwhile reason to trample Rights and Liberties.

It is just a happy coincidence that it wouldn't save lives anyway.

The gun grabbers just don't have a damn thing in their corner. They really don't.

 

[SpazC]

Why no compromise?

I want to understand you better on this. Are you saying that even if you were personally convinced that such a ban would save lives, you would still be opposed to it?

Yes, because I am also positively convinced that if we were all locked in rooms, given food and exercise that lives would be saved too.... that's where you have to take freedom into the equation.
We could ban cars because it saved lives too. Would you entertain that?
My point is you can't legislate because of outlier situations.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Deaf Smith]

DeafSmith,
Please be sure to authenticate quotes before posting them. There are a lot of invented ones circulating, and repeating them only discredits us.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

They are not hard to find. Notice most are in publications found in the Smithsonian or Library of Congress.

 

[The Teacher]

But the mass collectivization efforts you discuss, which caused the death of millions (mostly in the Ukraine) started around 1924, long before these areas were disarmed. And the bulk of the Soviet population was never disarmed, especially in central Russia and around Moscow- yet this didn't prevent the purges from 1936-1939.

The rest of your post is just as incorrect, sorry.

You've got your facts wrong...again. Please see my post above. #206. The bulk of the soviet population WAS disarmed prior to the famine and the purges. I've lived in Ukraine, spent years studying its history, and know quite a bit about the history of gun laws in the region.

Just to reiterate:

The Ukrainians, along with the rest of what at the time was considered Russia and soon to be Soviet Union, started losing their access to arms as early as 1918. The holodomor (Ukrainian Famine) began in earnest in 1932.

Some highlights:

March 21, 1918 - The "Petrograd Extraordinary Commission" states that without proper authorization of the "Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies" individuals are banned from storing weapons, ammunition and explosives.

December 10, 1918 - The "Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR" issues a decree on the surrender of weapons. According to the decree public and civil institutions, as well as citizens, were required to surrender their existing rifles, machine guns, and revolvers of all systems, as well as ammunition. Permission to possess firearms issued before the publication of the decree was now void. In order to encourage citizen participation in the confiscation of weapons, monetary compensation from the commissariat for military affairs was given to citizens who turned in weapons, for a serviceable rifle: 600 rubles, for defective: from 100 to 500 rubles. For each gun remuneration doubled. Possession of a firearm resulted in 6 months of jail time and eventually 3 months of hard labor and 300 rubles.

1920's - A few hunting exceptions were made culminating in 1923 with the "Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR" adopting a new resolution on hunting, according to which a certificate could be (not required to be) issued by the hunting authorities of the "People's Commissariat of Agriculture" to citizens who have reached the age of majority. The NKVD carried out the registration of hunting weapons (smoothbore shotguns at this time) and considerations for hunting ammunition.

 

[Resist Evil]

In spite of what Timmy wants, gun control laws do not promote American Liberty and do not prevent violence, thus all efforts to pass such laws must be resisted.

The Americans who post here serve as canaries in a coal mine. After Timmy and his kind gain success in further infringing on Liberty in the realm of firearms, the government will be coming after them for some other pretense.

Martin Niemoller warned us about the slippery slope, if a person has the eyes to read.

Timmy's response to violent crime was to cower behind sensible gun laws of no actual value. My personal response to a gun placed against my head in dark parking lot nearly forty years ago was to get a gun and learn to use it. Some folks run and hide, some folks are willing to fight back against the thugs on the street or in the hallowed halls of government.

Timmy, I hope your chains rest lightly upon you. I want to be Free.

 

[splattergun]

Let me be more specific: first off, I don't see where the 2nd Amendment says that guns cannot be regulated. Removing the private sales loophole should not be a question of 2nd Amendment rights one way or the other.

You could make a better argument, in theory, that banning certain types of firearms and high capacity magazines might violate the 2nd Amendment. But that argument fails in logic, because we can't allow private citizens to have any kind of ordnance. For instance, you would not want your neighbor to possess a nuclear suitcase bomb. Therefore, we should all be able to agree that there are SOME limitations, and once we agree to that point, none of this falls under the Second Amendment.

Again, I am not arguing at this point that these proposed new restrictions make sense (in my opinion, some do and some don't.) I am simply arguing none of them violate the 2nd Amendment as it was written.

Buying and selling guns person to person is not a 'loophole'. It is legally owned personal property being exchanged for for value. A perfectly legal right. "Closing the loophole' is an infringement of other rights as well.
You would do well to apply the firearms restrictions you espouse to any other right. For example, why don't you require a permit to freedom of religion? Why don't you require a mental evaluation to the right to peaceable assembley? Why are you not afraid of the right of your neighbor to vote?

This is not apples and oranges, my friend, it is fundamental to liberty.

 

[Warp]

Buying and selling guns person to person is not a 'loophole'. It is legally owned personal property being exchanged for for value. A perfectly legal right. "Closing the loophole' is an infringement of other rights as well.
You would do well to apply the firearms restrictions you espouse to any other right. For example, why don't you require a permit to freedom of religion? Why don't you require a mental evaluation to the right to peaceable assembley? Why are you not afraid of the right of your neighbor to vote?

This is not apples and oranges, my friend, it is fundamental to liberty.

Correct.

Same as the "high capacity" label, gun grabbers use words to influence what people think.

 

[leapfrog]

I have not read all 12 pages of this thread nor do I intend to my opinion is timmy4 is a troll.
He should look at the John Lott's sight and get a better idea of how much the anti gunners lie, John uses hard facts and proven numbers to debunk the nonsence about gun control.
Timmy4 used the word "compromise" what is the mutual consession?
If you give in I will leave you alone?

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

Timmy -

You seem to want a direct A then B = C correlations, and reject any events where A then B facilitated C; and then parse any information given so that your final analysis meets your views.

You also seem to reject any alternative views of history that don't agree exactly with your view of history, apparently derived from liberal / progressive / popular media interpretations of events.

As an example, the popular paradigm is that Franklin Roosevelt "saved America from the Great Depression." For an alternative analysis that may be closer to the truth - you might want to read, "The Forgotten Man," by Amity Shales. In it Shales tracks federal government actions and programs and their effect on the economy - to the detriment of Roosevelt and his policies.

As to magazine round limits - frankly - you have NO idea what your talking about. Anyone can bring extra guns or extra magazines.

If the fantasy is "you can rush the individual during a magazine change" I suggest you watch Todd Jarrett in this video - and then try and figure out HOW the round limitation (8) has hampered him in shooting the event shown - and more importantly - at exactly what point would you "rush" him during the magazine change to put him out of action?

Todd Jarrett - El Presidente

While everyone isn't Todd Jarrett, this will give you an idea of just how fast a magazine change can be made. Limit the amount in the magazine? Okay - carry more magazines.