Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Each of these came with 10 round mags. Each has HC mags. The top is a .223 The bottom is a .22LR. They stay locked up in a safe. I take them to a Sheriffs range once a month. I thought my wife was going to freak when I brought them. Did not bother her slightly. She knows they are handled responsibly. I was waiting for her to ask How Much...but she didn't. (got a pass on that one).
Gun owners go to same movies and malls that non gun owners and anti's go to. We are at risk also. The fact that 10 round mags kill less people does not impress me. I don't want anyone killed. Not 1.
It's not about capacities....it's about a gun in the wrong hands. Another law/ban is not going to stop that. These lawmakers are blowing smoke up America's rear end.

Scary looking rifles. They are no different than any other rifle. Just dressed up in black.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4527.jpg
    IMG_4527.jpg
    134.3 KB · Views: 38
I don't really appreciate the repeatedly expressed view by Timmy that he isn't trying to hurt our feelings or whatever. That could have been easily accomplished by doing his own research to provide answers to his question.

Nope. Won't buy it. The real point is to confront and create a contentious atmosphere, which is what is really happening.

Real estate agent or not, what Timmy is getting out of this is pages of threads and a whole group of people who have to toe the line and be nice to him. He's jerking our chain and manipulating us.

Why? Same old reason any guy does - it's a contest of wills to see who is the Man, and who has to be subordinate. LEO's know where I'm going with this, it's just monkey dancing, the kind of chest thumping posturing young boys in locker rooms indulge in to show who is the Alpha male.

I don't consider any of his questions or statements to be genuine, simply because they are couched in terms to continue the contest - not admit his statements can be inaccurate or are wrong. "I know history" didn't stand the test of examination - Timmy doesn't know history as well as he would like, and he certainly doesn't know how to conceal his intent.

All I see is a lot of provocation and sidestepping, baiting good people to continue an argument on his terms. If you think he's a troll or shill, then, of course, don't post further. If you think he's not a troll, fine, but how much dodge ball are you going to play with someone who's obviously jerking your chain?

Enough, guys, more posts aren't going to change his mind. He keeps throwing up more mud and hiding behind smokescreens. If I could prove it, I'd say he's a provocateur - paid to stir us up.

12 pages. Really? Somebody is sitting in a chair smugly smiliing while he posts another big jerk fest on your collective chains. He's got you doing this, instead of writing your Congressman.

These people never go away once they smell fear and weakness. Stop feeding the troll.
 
As I have stated, 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
Click to expand...


For discussion, what would be an acceptable number to restrict capacity to? You are not a gun person, the same as those proposing these new laws so what would be "fair"?

CA, MA and many cities already had a ban over 10 rounds and it did not affect the murder rates. NYS recently moved the ban to 7 rounds. What's next? 5? 3? See how it starts? It's a progression until they get what they want which is no guns.
 
I've been an aerospace design engineer for almost 30 years. In my world, I can't "feel" that something will work. I'm forced to base my decisions on real data or a lot of people will die.

What if we could do a real world experiment with your proposed "compromises"?

Let's pick a state and enforce your ideas of limited magazine capacity and required background checks for say, 12 years, then see how it works in the real world.

What a coincidence! California passed a magazine ban (10 round max) and required background checks for all gun sales effective 1/1/2000. In addition, California also banned removable magazines in assault weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California

Gun laws in California regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of California in the United States.[1][2]

The gun laws of California[3][4] are some of the strictest in the United States. A Handgun Safety Certificate, obtained by passing a written test, is required for handgun purchases, although there are exemptions to this requirement.[5] Handguns sold by dealers must be "California legal" by being listed on the state's roster of handguns certified for sale. Private sales of firearms must be done through a licensed dealer. All firearm sales are recorded by the state, and have a ten-day waiting period. Unlike most other states, California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.[1] The California Supreme Court has maintained that most of California's restrictive gun laws are constitutional based on the fact that the state's constitution does not explicitly guarantee private citizens the right to purchase, possess, or carry firearms. However recent US Supreme Court decisions of Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) established that the 2nd Amendment applied to all states within the Union, and many of California's gun laws are now being challenged in the federal courts.

Semi-automatic firearms that the state has classified as assault weapons, .50 BMG caliber rifles, and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition may not be sold in California. Possession of automatic firearms, and of short-barreled shotguns and rifles, is generally prohibited.
Click to expand...

Now let's see how well that worked.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/los-angeles/crime/

The violent crime rate for California is 4.11 per 1,000 residents. The national median is 3.9.

Why in the world should the rest of the US want to pass laws that have proven to be ineffective, expensive, and a probable infringement (court cases haven't been decided yet) on our rights?
 
You said it is not possible to defend yourself against a tyranical government. What are they doing in Syria, Egypt and other mideast countries with simple weapons? A lot of people do not believe this countries government could ever be tyranical but it has already happened. In TN in the 50's a town stood against its governement and won. In more recent times like a few years ago when Al Fraken was illegaly elected into office and Obama care was passed with his vote. You need only study the history or you are doomed to repeat it.
 
A lot of people also thought a bunch of farmers and shopkeepers in a few colonies could never possibly stand up to the greatest army in the world. But look how that turned out.
 
I don't know if it's been mentioned in this very long thread, but Jared Lee loughner was not subdued during a reload. He was subdued when his gun jammed. He then attempted to change magazines which is standard protocol in malfunction clearing. The window of opportunity to subdue him had much less to do with capacity than reliability.

In regards to the private sale "loophole", you assert that making something that is already illegal, doubly illegal will reduce it's frequency. I find that assumption unreasonable and not supported by evidence. Also consider what percentage of firearms used in crimes were purchased by felons at gun shows or private sales (one party is committing a crime) vs purchases where both parties are committing a crime. Also consider the percentage of stolen guns which demonstrate background checks to be irrelevant to crime prevention.
 
timmy4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
1. First, to whom do you refer as we?
They could be sold with a smaller mag, with literally no practicality. That's not me being subjective, that's DoJ statistic.
30 rounders have been in existence for decades.
2. Literally millions upon millions. For good measure, as we have a potent government force to keep on its toes.
3. A compromise is a deal in which both parties either come away content or having gained something. So, without being to short, hell no. You and your kind offer us nothing, so where is this a compromise? You must suck at playing cards.

Tell you what, if you and the sheep voluntarily go to the Supreme Court and relinquish your right to free speech, religion, and your right to vote...I'll give up my 2A. No questions asked.

Its a small price to pay for keeping moon bats from the polls with a vow of forced silence!
 
timmy4 said:
It doesn't matter what I think it's for. That's the point that many of you keep missing. The only thing that matters is whether or not I believe in what's written. I do. I do not desire to infringe on your right to bear arms.

As I have stated, 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.
Click to expand...
Then you have not followed out all of the logical implications of both of those steps.

First, the 2A is for the rights of the people to defend against tyranny. Any simple perusal of the writings of those that wrote the constitution upholds this clearly. The regulated militia is now considered the national guard, but the unregulated militia is still the people. We are not to have infringed our right to keep and bear arms sufficient for the purpose intended.

Secondly, the biggest mass shooting in America was with 10 round magazines. The magazine ban is illogical and once again unenforceable.

Lastly, as others have very eloquently expressed on this and other threads, mandatory background checks is unenforceable without full gun registry of all firearms in America. Not sure if anyone has the link to one of the excellent threads that detailed why that is the case.

So, if you are against gun registry, logically, you must follow suit and be against mandatory background checks on private sales. In addition, where is the evidence that this will prevent mass shootings in the first place?
 
timmy4 said:
As regards the background checks: my reasoning is that right now only one person needs to break the law in order to have an illegal private sale: the buyer. The seller can be behaving legally- he doesn't know he's selling the gun to a felon or someone else whose background makes it illegal to purchase. If background checks are required, then in order to break the law, both buyer AND seller will have to be willing to break the law. Since the vast majority of gun sellers are law-abiding people, I think this will cut the number of illegal sales down significantly. That's the basis of my argument.
Click to expand...

You mentioned your very harrowing experience with being the victim of a carjacking. Are you aware of the reason why carjackings skyrocketed in frequency in the 1990s and 2000s? It was because the auto manufacturers began making cars much more difficult to steal by popping the lock cylinder. Since a car thief found it very difficult to steal a car by traditional means they simply began taking them from their owners at gunpoint.

Explain, please, why this experience wouldn't be applicable to firearms? That is exactly what Adam Lanza did when stymied in his attempts to acquire firearms by normal means, he simply killed someone and took their guns.
 
timmy4 said:
Well unfortunately, that other thread remains closed. So let me return to some of the issues raised here.

I'm going to reiterate that I reject all arguments regarding either the "slippery slope" or the threat of a tyrannical government. I am receptive to arguments about effectiveness of various gun control measures.

Furthermore, it is my very strong judgment that if those on "your side" promote the "slippery slope" or "tyrannical govt." arguments too strongly, you are going to lose. The public at large not only does not see eye to eye with you on this, they will characterize you as extremist and isolate you politically, as they are already doing. Although many of you don't believe this, I am not what you would normally call an "anti" or "gun grabber." (In fact, I resent the use of the latter term because I have no desire to grab anyone's guns.) I am, I believe, a middle of the road person on these issues. I CAN be convinced, with good argument, to accept some of your POVs, but that argument needs to be based on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the proposals, and not on this other stuff.
Click to expand...
I readily understand that the dumbed down masses in our nation no longer have a basic understanding of simple constitutional issues. The concerted efforts against the constitution, against a godly nation have gone on for so long that we may already be passed the tipping point.

Nevertheless, win or lose in the long run, giving up long standing tried and true principles is not a way to win any national dialogue either. Educating folks ignorant of basic constitutional protections is still the best policy. If they fail to ever understand, then the "people" will have already lost. So, no thanks to pandering for a win.
 
timmy4 said:
The only limit that I personally propose is on gun magazines. As I explained in the other thread, I am in favor of this because I believe it MIGHT save lives in some mass shooting incidents. The other measure I am in favor of, removing the private sales loophole, places no limitation on you so long as you are not a convicted felon.

I do not believe felons, like the guy who carjacked me, are going to obey the law. But having laws in place can make it more difficult for him, and that's what I want to do.
Click to expand...
Did the lack of "hicap" magazines in Virginia tech work well for you? It is simply a false premise leading to an illogical conclusion. If we ban "hicap" magazines, we will prevent mass shootings. Well, Virginia Tech speaks against that false conclusion.
 
Alaska444 said:
Did the lack of "hicap" magazines in Virginia tech work well for you? It is simply a false premise leading to an illogical conclusion. If we ban "hicap" magazines, we will prevent mass shootings. Well, Virginia Tech speaks against that false conclusion.
Click to expand...

Didn't he have some 15 round magazines too?

I am aware that he fired an average of 10 rounds per magazine and many held 10 rounds.

He also used two handguns. No rifles. No "assault weapons". And is currently the holder of the media's gold medal for highest bodycount while using firearms
 
timmy4,
Welcome to The High Road! One of the questions that you asked a page back, or so, was, "Why no compromise?" Right now, there are no compromises in the works. A compromise requires that each side to a negotiation give up some of the things that it wants out of the bargaining, to reach an acceptable "middle ground." For many gun owners, myself included, all we see is a fairly large push to strip us of our 2A right. That's not a compromise.

The other thing about rights and compromise is that you shouldn't have to compromise on rights. Yes, we all understand that some limits can be placed on any right. But IMHO, the gun community feels like it has given up rights over and over, while receiving nothing in return. There's a blog post that, I think, illustrates this very well. It's at the LawDog Files, and it's called OK, I'll Play.

What's more is that all of the measures that we've seen proposed have several things in common: (1) they will only affect law-abiding citizens; and (2) they will not affect criminals or crime rates. IOW, more gun control is seen as something that will only disarm the law-abiding and create more victims.
 
Spats McGee said:
timmy4,
Welcome to The High Road! One of the questions that you asked a page back, or so, was, "Why no compromise?" Right now, there are no compromises in the works. A compromise requires that each side to a negotiation give up some of the things that it wants out of the bargaining, to reach an acceptable "middle ground." For many gun owners, myself included, all we see is a fairly large push to strip us of our 2A right. That's not a compromise.

The other thing about rights and compromise is that you shouldn't have to compromise on rights. Yes, we all understand that some limits can be placed on any right. But IMHO, the gun community feels like it has given up rights over and over, while receiving nothing in return. There's a blog post that, I think, illustrates this very well. It's at the LawDog Files, and it's called OK, I'll Play.

What's more is that all of the measures that we've seen proposed have several things in common: (1) they will only affect law-abiding citizens; and (2) they will not affect criminals or crime rates. IOW, more gun control is seen as something that will only disarm the law-abiding and create more victims.
Click to expand...

Compromise?

Maybe the feds re-open machine gun registration and put in the manpower to reduce tax stamp processing to 30 days or less?

Reduce handgun purchase requirement, from dealers, to 18?
 
All this focus on ARs and "high cap" magazines. Exciting, dramatic, but not particularly more effective than shotguns and bolt-action rifles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

He didn't use the handguns. Only a few of those on the South Mall were shot with a semi-auto. Most of the shooting was with the 6mm Rem. bolt-action rifle.

(Some error in the Wiki article: Roy Schmidt was standing out in the middle of 21st and Univ. Ave., arms folded, looking at the tower. I stepped it off, later, and it was about 420 yards.)

Why is it that the less somebody knows about something, the stronger the opinion?
 
Appreciate the reasonable responses, but I'm still not sure why some of you are so hostile and consider me a "troll." Would you really prefer to be left with your own opinions and not hear any others? Or would you prefer someone who fit better your stereotype of the anti-gun person? OK, let me see if I can accommodate you:

The only reason I am promoting bans on high cap magazines is so that I can eventually remove all of your guns. The only reason I am promoting background checks on private sales is so I can register all guns in America for the purpose of seizing them. I don't really care about gun crime; my real goal is to do away with the Second Amendment. Why? Because me and my buddies want to impose a socialist dictatorship and we are THIS close to doing so. The only thing stopping us is private gun ownership so that has to be destroyed. Besides, everyone who owns guns is a toothless, redneck bigot married to his sister.

Is that better?
 
timmy4, part of the hostility may come from the fact that in recent months, we've seen an influx of new members, and their threads almost invariably started with, "I'm new to the site, but not to guns. We have to figure out what we're willing to give up to save our guns!" Honestly, it felt like infiltration in many cases. It felt like anti-gun folks coming along, looking for the opening, to figure out what could be taken from us.
 
76shuvlinoff said:
Troll Troll Troll Troll

Come on folks, this bloke has no interest in the truth, he came here with a passive aggressive method of occupying time and space. Every response directly to him is another notch in his belt. You are giving him what he really wants and it is not what of what he says he wants. Charlatan, liar, spy, it's way past time to call a spade a spade. Please do not give him any more recognition.

Let it go.
Click to expand...
No offense, but you need to wake up. Something like 75% of Americans are in support of a background check for all private sales. Something like 65% of all Americans support a ban on high capacity gun magazines. I'm actually reconsidering the latter, thanks to some very strong arguments made in this thread. But my point is: if you want to prevent what YOU (not I) believe to be an infringement of your rights, you might want to try conversing with those of us who disagree with you. Refusing to respond to our concerns, calling us "trolls" and trying to get us shut down, will in the long run lose you the argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
A Breakdown of the 2nd Amendment
Replies
16
Views
1K
9teenEleven
9
B
  • Locked
Great 2nd Amendment Event...
Replies
5
Views
577
BowStreetRunner
B
S
  • Locked
This might be the last decade for the 2nd Amendment
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
6K
David White
D
K
  • Locked
2nd Amendment vs 1st Amendment Strength, discuss...
Replies
10
Views
632
Graystar
G
E
  • Locked
Who Really Supports the 2nd Amendment
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
wuluf
W
Back
Top