Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
the "apoplexy" that Spence speaks of is actually on the part of the main stream media and their political allies defaulting to a predictable emotional narrative that ignores facts and drums ahead with a political agenda...it shouldn't be surprising....
You mean like the boob who asked the DC police if it was alright to use a hi cap magazine on his show and was denied since they are against the law and did it anyway. BTW notice Lapierre's response at the end, spot on since they are banned in DC and the asshat had one.
You mean like the boob who asked the DC police if it was alright to use a hi cap magazine on his show and was denied since they are against the law and did it anyway. BTW notice Lapierre's response at the end, spot on since they are banned in DC and the asshat had one.
Maybe agenda-driven questions like this are why the NRA is so apprehensive to having discussions with the unreasonable:
Quote:
"Here is a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets. Now, isn't it possible if we got rid of these, if we replaced them and said, 'Well, you can only have a magazine that carries five bullets or ten bullets,' isn't it just possible that we could reduce the carnage in a situation like Newtown?'"
Next, let's go to an AA meeting, hold up a bottle of high-proof vodka and ask:
"Here's a bottle of 120 proof vodka. Now, isn't it possible if we got rid of these high alcohol spirits and said 'you can only have say 40 proof or 70 proof vodka,' isn't it just possible we could reduce the deaths due to driving drunk?"
Maybe agenda-driven questions like this are why the NRA is so apprehensive to having discussions with the unreasonable:
Next, let's go to an AA meeting, hold up a bottle of high-proof vodka and ask:
"Here's a bottle of 120 proof vodka. Now, isn't it possible if we got rid of these high alcohol spirits and said 'you can only have say 40 proof or 70 proof vodka,' isn't it just possible we could reduce the deaths due to driving drunk?"
Now we would be logical. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Maybe agenda-driven questions like this are why the NRA is so apprehensive to having discussions with the unreasonable:
Next, let's go to an AA meeting, hold up a bottle of high-proof vodka and ask:
"Here's a bottle of 120 proof vodka. Now, isn't it possible if we got rid of these high alcohol spirits and said 'you can only have say 40 proof or 70 proof vodka,' isn't it just possible we could reduce the deaths due to driving drunk?"
Johnny D, why is it unreasonable to assume that if you eliminate high capacity magazines, you can lower the body count?
Your analogy to alcohol is off. If vodka is banned, you're right that I can get just as drunk drinking beer. But in the case of these shootings, there have been documented cases where the shooter is stopped when he pauses to reload. That's fact. It also seems like common sense to me. The harder it is to shoot a ton of bullets, the lower the expected body count.
To me, the flaw in the argument for banning those magazines is, you can't confiscate the ones that are out there. So maybe it's 15 years from now before that has any effect, because a then-18 year-old can't get a high-capacity magazine.
I lso feel that any discussion around gun control is, at best, going to lower the body count after these attacks happen. Better to discuss what causes them in the first place, but liberals won't want to talk about looking at movie violence, video game violence, committing folks who appear to be insane, and family values.
Your analogy to alcohol is off. If vodka is banned, you're right that I can get just as drunk drinking beer. But in the case of these shootings, there have been documented cases where the shooter is stopped when he pauses to reload. That's fact. It also seems like common sense to me. The harder it is to shoot a ton of bullets, the lower the expected body count.
I apologize for having only but a minute, so I'll make a few outrageous claims and then come back to cite them tomorrow and correct inaccuracies. However, the following should give enough info to get people down the path of the FACTS, as opposed to media driven hysteria. The Denver shooter allegedly had a drum magazine jam which brought his spree to an end and I believe the Oregon shooter had a 30rd magazine jam and then a person with a legal Carry permit took aim at him, didn't shoot due to concerns of bystander safety and then the Oregon shooter shot himself.
Large capacity magazines are notorious for jamming, especially when it comes to rifle caliber cartridges - not so much for pistol cartridges or .22lr.
The previous ban on magazines over 10rds was only for magazines manufactured post-1994. However, it is relatively impossible to tell the difference between many pre and post manufactured magazines. Also, there are millions and millions of magazines available from as long as 30 years ago such as military surplus. A ban would do nothing to reduce availability.
You're a man of numbers. There's a reason why gun-grabbers use terms like "sensible reform", "common sense gun laws" and other emotionally-driven yet unsubstantiated terminology. Because there is *zero empirical evidence* that verifies any reduction in deaths due to the previous Federal Assault Weapon Ban.
Lastly, which situation was actually stopped when the shooter stopped to reload? Denver and CT were both "Gun Free Zones" so there should have been zero legally-armed citizens. As such, there was no opportunity for the shooter to be stopped while reloading.
Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
It seems like most shooting sprees end when the shooter puts a bullet into his own head......maybe if we can just get them to start there 1st. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I apologize for having only but a minute, so I'll make a few outrageous claims and then come back to cite them tomorrow and correct inaccuracies. However, the following should give enough info to get people down the path of the FACTS, as opposed to media driven hysteria. The Denver shooter allegedly had a drum magazine jam which brought his spree to an end and I believe the Oregon shooter had a 30rd magazine jam and then a person with a legal Carry permit took aim at him, didn't shoot due to concerns of bystander safety and then the Oregon shooter shot himself.
Large capacity magazines are notorious for jamming, especially when it comes to rifle caliber cartridges - not so much for pistol cartridges or .22lr.
The previous ban on magazines over 10rds was only for magazines manufactured post-1994. However, it is relatively impossible to tell the difference between many pre and post manufactured magazines. Also, there are millions and millions of magazines available from as long as 30 years ago such as military surplus. A ban would do nothing to reduce availability.
You're a man of numbers. There's a reason why gun-grabbers use terms like "sensible reform", "common sense gun laws" and other emotionally-driven yet unsubstantiated terminology. Because there is *zero empirical evidence* that verifies any reduction in deaths due to the previous Federal Assault Weapon Ban.
Lastly, which situation was actually stopped when the shooter stopped to reload? Denver and CT were both "Gun Free Zones" so there should have been zero legally-armed citizens. As such, there was no opportunity for the shooter to be stopped while reloading.
Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
You are not in the habit of making outrageous claims.
I'll see which mass shooting, if there was one, was stopped when the killer stopped to reload.
Look, I'm no anti-gun nut. It just seems like common sense to me that it's easier for me to kill more people with a 30-round magazine than with 3 ten-round magazines. If I'm wrong, and I may be, then that should be the end of the discussion. But if my goal is to kill as many people as possible, I'll take a rifle with a high-capacity magazine over a revolver every day.
If we are serious about making changes (and I see no evidence we are), we need to make gun control decisions that are based on fact, not emotion. In my opinion, the gun-control issue is less important than the required discussion about the crap in movies and video games we bombard our kids with.
In a free society, we will have these things happen on occasion, that's the price we pay for our freedom. But if we can reduce the frequency and severity of these attacks without trampling on the constitution, I'm all for it.
Look, I'm no anti-gun nut. It just seems like common sense to me that it's easier for me to kill more people with a 30-round magazine than with 3 ten-round magazines.
So what is the acceptable number of people that are allowed to be killed before it is necessary to "control" guns? Is it ten? If one ten round clip should be the max as many state, and assuming that every shot is a kill, would ten be the acceptable number? That might even be reduced to nine since the killer would likely save the last bullet for himself, and his death would not matter. I just find it peculiar to envision a round table of policy makers discussing the right number. Sort of like a ghoulish "kill control," or "number control," then passing the right "gun control" which would limit capacity to the decided number, and the citizens then being pleased that they finally "did something about it."
Traditionally, "gun control" has not been about such numbers. The VAST MAJORITY of death by gun crime in our country has been done by other than "assault type" guns. That larger number, mostly by handguns, has been the constant impetus to "control" guns. The occasional mass murders have just become the "crises" that must not be allowed to go to waste in order to push the issue. Way back in 1994 when "certain military-style-semi-automatic weapons" were banned, a Washington Post editorial said this:
"No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. the provision is MAINLY SYMBOLIC; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, AS HOPED, A STEPPING STONE to broader gun control."
The ultimate goal has always been very broad "gun control," not just so-called assault or semi-automatic, or large clip weapons.
If we are serious about making changes (and I see no evidence we are), we need to make gun control decisions that are based on fact, not emotion. In my opinion, the gun-control issue is less important than the required discussion about the crap in movies and video games we bombard our kids with.
I agree about larger issues and deeper reasons, but when we go about "controlling" all those issues there is really no end to what will be "controlled."
In a free society, we will have these things happen on occasion, that's the price we pay for our freedom. But if we can reduce the frequency and severity of these attacks without trampling on the constitution, I'm all for it.
A free society, one worthy of our Constitution, is a virtuous society. The Founders understood that without virtue, neither the Constitution nor freedom would be viable. The only way to reduce the frequency of abominations is to instill, instruct, and raise a people who cherish honor, virtue, and righteous lives.
The abandonment of the Constitution (and its insistance that we govern ourselves--that our inalienable right to liberty is also an undeniable duty to be responsible which requires the ultimate virtue) is a stepping stone to the destruction of that virtue as we forgo our rights and responsibilities by transferring those duties to the government. In having lost control of those rights and responsibilities, we must be controlled by government. The ultimate control is not gun control. It is control of the people.
Last edited by detbuch; 12-30-2012 at 02:04 AM..
Reason: typos.
A trained shooter can change a magazine in about 3 to 5 seconds. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I was waiting for someone to chime in on this..It does not matter what the gun is. If a psycho wants to kill a bunch of people they will find a way weather its a gun, knife, vehicle, bomb, poison/chemical, fire, whatever.
I am not going to debate gun control but we all know it wont keep the criminals from getting them or finding even more destructive ways to carry out there sick killing schemes
The largest school killing in US history happened in 1927.......guy bombed an elementary school killing 38 kids. There was the subway sarin gas attack in Tokyo. Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City......if someone wants to kill a large amount of people they will figure out a way. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You are not in the habit of making outrageous claims.
I'll see which mass shooting, if there was one, was stopped when the killer stopped to reload.
Look, I'm no anti-gun nut. It just seems like common sense to me that it's easier for me to kill more people with a 30-round magazine than with 3 ten-round magazines. If I'm wrong, and I may be, then that should be the end of the discussion. But if my goal is to kill as many people as possible, I'll take a rifle with a high-capacity magazine over a revolver every day.
If we are serious about making changes (and I see no evidence we are), we need to make gun control decisions that are based on fact, not emotion. In my opinion, the gun-control issue is less important than the required discussion about the crap in movies and video games we bombard our kids with.
In a free society, we will have these things happen on occasion, that's the price we pay for our freedom. But if we can reduce the frequency and severity of these attacks without trampling on the constitution, I'm all for it.
Have you ever had a gun pointed at you?
There are two types of people in this world, Fight or Flight, and 99.9 % are flight type people.
If a guys is fumbling with a magazine any unarmed person is going to take flight, so he will just change it out and keep going. An armed person is more likely to make a stand and end the situation, but since there are fewer legally armed citizens in the country than unarmed, you will end up with more casualties, and less people putting an end to the threat. Most people who are adept with firearms are not going to let a magazine change stop them from their intent.
BTW I know what it is like to have a gun stuck in my face as a victim of an Armed Robbery when I was 16, it is not a very pleasant feeling, and believe me if my cousin had a gun behind the counter I would have fought back...
The largest school killing in US history happened in 1927.......guy bombed an elementary school killing 38 kids. There was the subway sarin gas attack in Tokyo. Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City......if someone wants to kill a large amount of people they will figure out a way. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
TDF, do you believe these things you type, or are you contrarian just for the sake of it?
You're absolutely right. We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop 100% of vilent crime. So let's shut down prisons, abandon the police force, and leave our doors open at night.
Wee can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all car accidents. So let's get rid of laws that prohibit drunk driving, and let 4 year-olds drive on the highway.
We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all fires, right? So let's get rid of the fire department, and abolish laws that pertain to fire safety.
This is your logic.
We pass laws that increase saefty without trampling on our freedoms. we can't stop everything. Maybe we can lower the body count the next time some kook snaps and reaches for the weapons he's legally allowed to buy at that time.
TDF, answer one question? If a kook snaps at your kids' school, you see no difference in the expected body count, whether the kook has a rock, a knife, a handgun, or a rifle with a high-capacity magazine? Those situations are all identical?
Have you ever had a gun pointed at you?
There are two types of people in this world, Fight or Flight, and 99.9 % are flight type people.
If a guys is fumbling with a magazine any unarmed person is going to take flight, so he will just change it out and keep going. An armed person is more likely to make a stand and end the situation, but since there are fewer legally armed citizens in the country than unarmed, you will end up with more casualties, and less people putting an end to the threat. Most people who are adept with firearms are not going to let a magazine change stop them from their intent.
BTW I know what it is like to have a gun stuck in my face as a victim of an Armed Robbery when I was 16, it is not a very pleasant feeling, and believe me if my cousin had a gun behind the counter I would have fought back...
I'm not anti-gun, I am aware of what happens in cities where guns are banned. All I'm saying is, and this is irrefutable, it's harder for the averake kook to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is with a rifle.
You're talking about typical street crime. I'm talking about the much rarer situation where someone snaps and wants to kill as many people as possible. I'm not talking robbery, I'm talking about random mass murder. In that scenario, I'm pretty sure we are all better off if that guy has a handgun than a rifle with a high-capacity magazine.
To answer your question, I am a combat vet. And every time I was in for-real combat, I would have been much happier if the bad guys had handguns instead of automatic weapons.
You people are denying that guns are more dangerous than my bare hands, and denying that machine guns are more lethal than handguns? I don't get that argument.
"If a guys is fumbling with a magazine any unarmed person is going to take flight,"
Wrong. Tell that to the principal and the psychologist of Sandy Hook school who died rushing the shooter while he was still shooting. If that kook had to stop to re-load at that time, there is a getter chance they could have overpowered him just long enough for the cavalry to arrive.
I would never say that banning high capacity magazines will end crime. However, I can't believe some people are denying that these weapons make it easier to kill large numbers of people. why do you think the Marines are issued rifles? To twirl around at parades? For the exercise we get carrying them around?
A free society, one worthy of our Constitution, is a virtuous society. The Founders understood that without virtue, neither the Constitution nor freedom would be viable. The only way to reduce the frequency of abominations is to instill, instruct, and raise a people who cherish honor, virtue, and righteous lives.
The abandonment of the Constitution (and its insistance that we govern ourselves--that our inalienable right to liberty is also an undeniable duty to be responsible which requires the ultimate virtue) is a stepping stone to the destruction of that virtue as we forgo our rights and responsibilities by transferring those duties to the government. In having lost control of those rights and responsibilities, we must be controlled by government. The ultimate control is not gun control. It is control of the people.
I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.
I'm not saying I necessarily support a ban on these things, for the exact reasons you mention. But we need to have an honest conversation about the pros and cons that are based on facts and common sense.
TDF, do you believe these things you type, or are you contrarian just for the sake of it?
You're absolutely right. We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop 100% of vilent crime. So let's shut down prisons, abandon the police force, and leave our doors open at night.
Wee can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all car accidents. So let's get rid of laws that prohibit drunk driving, and let 4 year-olds drive on the highway.
We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all fires, right? So let's get rid of the fire department, and abolish laws that pertain to fire safety.
This is your logic.
We pass laws that increase saefty without trampling on our freedoms. we can't stop everything. Maybe we can lower the body count the next time some kook snaps and reaches for the weapons he's legally allowed to buy at that time.
TDF, answer one question? If a kook snaps at your kids' school, you see no difference in the expected body count, whether the kook has a rock, a knife, a handgun, or a rifle with a high-capacity magazine? Those situations are all identical?
So what body count is the right number? Are we OK with ten dead before we pass a law? Is the magic number twenty? Every one of those 20, or 10, or 5, is a one to the parents that lose a child. To each of those parents one is the limit.
If we can't pass a law to keep all kooks off the streets and out of society, what law will stop them from killing the all important number? Kooks drive cars and start fires too. How many deaths per fire or car accident do we allow them before we pass a law to stop them?
The major difference, among many, between the right to bear arms and driving or having access to flammables is the specific prohibition in the Constitution against government denying citizens the ownership of guns. While neither owning cars or matches are also not prohibited by the Constitution, the specific listing of guns, for specific all-important reasons, also prohibits the States from denying the right to bear arms.
The Constitution reserves the legislation of criminal or civil law to the States, and to the Federal Government only those laws legislated under the umbrella of its enumerated powers.
You don't want to trample the Constitution, but you might be a little more hesitant about the constant nibbling at it. Gun "control" laws, as limited as they might constitutionally be, should be reserved to the States. Do you notice how "gun control" has been made a Federal issue?
I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.
If the Constitution is silent on something that does not fall under the purview of the Federal Government's enumerated powers, it means that the Federal Government has no power to regulate or legislate re that thing.
I'm not saying I necessarily support a ban on these things, for the exact reasons you mention. But we need to have an honest conversation about the pros and cons that are based on facts and common sense.
I don't think that anyone denies that "assault-type" or automatic weapons allow you to kill mass numbers more quickly than non-automatic hand guns. If we can get the conversation beyond that point it might be meaningful. If that IS the point the discussion is not only creepy, but rather indeterminate.
There was a law on the books that said a person convicted of a felony could not own firearms.....did that law stop the guy in NY from killing those firefighters? He served 17 years for manslaughter and still got his hands on them. So now we pass a feel good law prohibiting high capacity magazines.......if someone wants one they will still get one no matter if its legal or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Last edited by The Dad Fisherman; 12-30-2012 at 02:10 PM..
Reason: Not worth it
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
So what body count is the right number? Are we OK with ten dead before we pass a law? Is the magic number twenty? Every one of those 20, or 10, or 5, is a one to the parents that lose a child. To each of those parents one is the limit.
If we can't pass a law to keep all kooks off the streets and out of society, what law will stop them from killing the all important number? Kooks drive cars and start fires too. How many deaths per fire or car accident do we allow them before we pass a law to stop them?
The major difference, among many, between the right to bear arms and driving or having access to flammables is the specific prohibition in the Constitution against government denying citizens the ownership of guns. While neither owning cars or matches are also not prohibited by the Constitution, the specific listing of guns, for specific all-important reasons, also prohibits the States from denying the right to bear arms.
The Constitution reserves the legislation of criminal or civil law to the States, and to the Federal Government only those laws legislated under the umbrella of its enumerated powers.
You don't want to trample the Constitution, but you might be a little more hesitant about the constant nibbling at it. Gun "control" laws, as limited as they might constitutionally be, should be reserved to the States. Do you notice how "gun control" has been made a Federal issue?
"So what body count is the right number? "
I don't know, and that's exactly why we need the conversation.
Detbuch, we can save lives by banning cars. I would not support that law, because cars provide an incalculable amount of freedom to 95% of Americans. I just don't see that high capacity magazines are as essential to our way of life. If banning them saves one little kid, personally I'd be OK with banning them. I don't think that banning high capacity magazines amounts to a trampling of the constitutional right to bear arms. You could still buy the weapon, just with lower capacity magazines. That doesn't seem all that totalitarian to me.
There was a law on the books that said a person convicted of a felony could not own firearms.....did that law stop the guy in NY from killing those firefighters? He served 17 years for manslaughter and still got his hands on them. So now we pass a feel good law prohibiting high capacity magazines.......if someone wants one they will still get one no matter if its legal or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
TDF, all you're doing is pointing out that public safety laws are not 100% foolproof. In equally shocking news, scientists announced today that water is wet.
Using your logic, why not eliminate the police and all criminal laws? After all, those laws don't eliminate crime, right? What possible difference is there between what you said, and what I just said? You're saying that if a public safety law isn't 100% fool-proof, it's therefore useless. That's all you saying, you can say it as many times as you want, it's still idiotic.
If something is illegal, some folks will get their hands on them. But not everyone has the means to acquire illegal weapons. Nor is every crime is committed with the planning and premidation required to obtain black-market illegal weapons. Some crimes (not all, but some) are more spur-of-the-moment, and in those cases, the kook uses what's at his fingertips. In thaty scenario, the less lethal the wepon at his disposal, the lower the expected body count, all other things being equal.
I notice you chose not to answer my question about what weapon you'd prefer a would-be mass murderer to have if he went to your kids' school.
This killer in Newtown had major mental issues. It's highly unlikely he'd be able to get his hands on illegal weapons. The only person he talked to was his mother.
TDF, there isn't a single public safety law on the books that can't be circumvented. Not one. Using your 'logic', I guess we should eliminate all those laws. Incredible.
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson
An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.
Thomas Jefferson
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.
Thomas Jefferson
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
I notice you chose not to answer my question about what weapon you'd prefer a would-be mass murderer to have if he went to your kids' school.
A Feather Pillow.......Happy.
Have a happy New Year.......l forgot about my resolution last year......not to get into discussions with you......My blood pressure just goes through the roof......
You use your logic and l'll use mine and let's not try and understand each others....OK Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
I don't know, and that's exactly why we need the conversation.
THERE . . . IS . . . NO . . . CORRECT . . . MAGIC . . . NUMBER!!!!! All numbers eventually lead to ONE! You cannot have a sensible conversation about the humane number of deaths as the correct number. This is not a discussion about old-fashioned military operations where you throw superior numbers of troops at the enemy to overpower them with the expectant number of acceptable losses on your side. The victims of mass murders which are the subject of this conversation are not draftees or volunteers who expect to fight and possibly die. They are not even armed. Every death . . . every single death is A SINGLE sorrow to be mourned. If you begin to discuss how many must be killed before "we do something" the number will EVENTUALLY be whittled down to ONE. If you wish to ban certain guns because they are used to kill innocent people, ONE is the proper number. And since all guns can be used to quickly kill a single person, ALL guns would must then be banned. That is the logical conclusion if the discussion is about numbers.
Detbuch, we can save lives by banning cars.
No, you can't save lives by banning anything we produce. The only thing that can save lives is banning death. Every minute you exist may be your last. And, unless you commit suicide, you don't know when, or how, you will die. Just about anything, including the food you eat, can kill you. What we try to do, I think, in a civil society, is to freely cooperate with one another so that we may individually pursue what we consider our happiness, and part of that cooperation is to refrain from willfully killing each other. We institute laws that punish crimes against each other. One murder is as punishable as 100 and no less an offense to civil society. It is the rogue, not the weapon, who offends. When you give greater weight to 100 deaths than to one, you diminish the loss of that death, and therefor you diminish the loss of all.
I would not support that law, because cars provide an incalculable amount of freedom to 95% of Americans. I just don't see that high capacity magazines are as essential to our way of life.
Our way of life as instituted by the Founders placed weapons capable of resisting a tyrannical government at the top echelon of what is essential to that way. The Second Ammendment and what it guarantees is the final resort to securing that freedom.
If banning them saves one little kid, personally I'd be OK with banning them. I don't think that banning high capacity magazines amounts to a trampling of the constitutional right to bear arms. You could still buy the weapon, just with lower capacity magazines. That doesn't seem all that totalitarian to me.
You're still not understanding a key point in this discussion. I know you think that citizens defending themselves against the U.S. military is a silly idea. Maybe so. 250 million well-armed citizens would be formidable if they had the courage and purpose to fight. And included in that number would, I think, be included a good portion of that military. Would you, as a soldier, if the government proclaimed martial law with the aim of collecting all weapons from the citizens and imposing an open, despotic, anti-constitutional government, the Constitution you swore to protect and defend--would you serve that government or rebel against it. But that is not the immediate point of this discussion.
The point is that the Federal Government should not be banning the guns from the hands of the citizens. Whatever, if any, banning is done should be at the State level where the citizens have more direct say whether they CHOOSE to ban high capacity magazines, etc.
I apologize for not being able to really commit to discussion and hate having to do these drive-by posts...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Wrong. Tell that to the principal and the psychologist of Sandy Hook school who died rushing the shooter while he was still shooting. If that kook had to stop to re-load at that time, there is a getter chance they could have overpowered him just long enough for the cavalry to arrive.
It's easy to support your argument with "Ifs", but the fact of the matter is that your scenario just isn't accurate. The shooter had multiple weapons on him (has there been clarity yet on exactly which?). Let's go with the last report I remember and say he had a rifle and two pistols on him. Pistols provide a level of protection for exactly the situation you bring up. When the piece of trash had to stop and reload, his pistol could be used as protection until he was able to do so.
There is little benefit to the mentality of "long enough for the cavalry to arrive." As I have stated before, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away."
Quote:
I would never say that banning high capacity magazines will end crime. However, I can't believe some people are denying that these weapons make it easier to kill large numbers of people. why do you think the Marines are issued rifles? To twirl around at parades? For the exercise we get carrying them around?
(quick side story)I think it was General Pershing that said "The deadliest weapon in battle is a Marine and his rifle." I type this quote because, well for one I like it and for two, it demonstrates that a rifle is useless without a Marine behind it, just as a gun does not go bang without someone pulling the trigger. (end side story)
The Marines are issued rifles because that is the tool best suited for the job - shooting at distance.
For situations like close-quarters clearing of building, the weapon of choice is a severely modified rifle, known as a short-barreled rifle. A short-barreled rifle is illegal for a typical citizen to own without submitting an application to the ATF, paying a $200 tax and fulfilling all other requirements of the National Firearms Act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.
While I'm not nearly smart enough or pretentious enough to be a lawyer it is my understanding that in law, it is taught that there is a requirement to look at "intent" when there is not 100% clarity.
Yes, the Constitution states that I have a Right to bear arms. If we interpret that literally, that could mean the government would be within the Constitution to limit people to black powder rifles and no more. However, there is a need to look at context and intent.
The Revolutionaries had just rebelled against an oppressive regime. The British were exploitative of the Colonists, over-taxed them without representation, under-supported them and had an overall disregard for a colony that was increasing the riches of the Crown (sounds familiar to being a small business owner today), not to mention the constant involuntary quartering of British troops. Publications were mostly limited to those that were sponsored by the throne. People were sentenced to imprisonment or death by a Throne-appointed magistrate.
In order to fight the oppressive regime, the colonists needed to "take arms" and fight in the face of tyranny.
Now, let's look at our Bill of Rights. Trial by jury of peers, Freedom of Speech/Religion/Press, prohibition of peacetime quartering of troops, security against unreasonable searches and seizures, a well regulated Militia, right to keep and bear arms.
All of these items are to prevent the wrongs which were committed by the British. The Revolutionaries feared a central government with too much power(hence why their first attempt to create one failed) and tried to do whatever possible to keep that central government in check when drafting the Constitution.
With the above long-winded preface in mind, the intent of the law becomes clear. The intent of the Second Amendment isn't "everyone gets to have a gun", it's that the citizens be allowed to own weapons to fight against another tyrannical government or any other regime that would get out of control. I have read speculation that the reason the right to bear arms immediately follows the First Amendment is because the Second Amendment provides a means of protection for the First Amendment.
I tend to be offended when people claim "well the Second Amendment doesn't state the type of gun", somewhat because it's the irrational response of many liberals I talk to, but mostly because it demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the principles for which this country was founded on. The claim would be no different than saying "the First Amendment states you have freedom of speech, but it doesn't state where you can speak freely," a ludicrous claim if it were ever to be made.
Large capacity magazines are notorious for jamming, especially when it comes to rifle caliber cartridges - not so much for pistol cartridges or .22lr.
This has nothing to do with the debate here but I'm curious as to why you would state this?
When I was instructing in the USAF our armory had a wide variety of rifle caliber weapons with high cap mags for dog and pony shows etc.
I don't even think I can recall a malfunction due to a magazine unless the mag itself was somehow physically damaged.Just the opposite with .22LR,the high cap mags always jammed especially the mag for the .22LR conversion kit for the M16.
In any case one of the biggest things to be considered in any magazine malfunction is the condition and quality of the ammo itself.
This has nothing to do with the debate here but I'm curious as to why you would state this?
I may be speaking a bit out of turn, and should have mentioned circumstantial evidence - since living in the socialist commonwealth of Massachusetts, such world-ending destructive devices are not widely available here. The Aurora movie theater shooting is a recent example of a 100-rd drum magazine in .223 malfunctioning.
When I say "high-capacity" I'm talking magazines greater than 30 rounds. Frankly, a 30 round magazine is "standard capacity" for rifles. Politicians have re-defined "high capacity" to mean anything above 10 rounds, just as "assault weapon" is not an actual description of a firearm but a politically created term. Just as you experienced with the USAF, 30 rounds is a standard magazine size.
I apologize for the confusion by not clarifying that ahead of time. When I speak of high capacity, it's more in reference to 50 round magazines and drums. The issue arises due to politicians redefining terminology to fit their agendas. Since my experience is certainly limited to only a few opportunities shooting with 50-rd magazines, I'd definitely welcome experiences to confirm and deny what I've seen and heard.
And I would concur 100% that those large cap drum mags jam-up big time.Almost any high cap mags including the 40rd AK mags jam.30rd mags would appear to be the threshold for true functionality in a magazine from my experience.
Magazine capacity is irrelevent. Lee Harvey Oswald changed history with a bolt action Italian Army surplus rifle. We need to allow those who are LEGALLY allowed to, to arm themselves and deny those who are not. Every single thing that I can think of that is regulated in this country has a larger black market that legal one. Drugs, Guns? Maybe they all should be deregulated, when the dust clears, the problem would have taken care of itself through ODs , killings and general mayhem. Being facitious here, so keep yer panties on. We need to keep the criminal and the weapon separated. And to not deny the law abiding citizen means to his own protection. It is plain that the government cannot protect us always. Crazies and criminal are a problem that require some deep thinking..
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Linear Mode
