Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 7, 2017 Author Share Posted October 7, 2017 Mother Cocanuts, Voting is also a right yet due to the problems that can arise from election it is regulated and requires registration. Why should the right to keep and bear firearms be exempted from regulation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerHaHa Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 Quote No American citizen needs to own 30-40 fire arms. Home protection can be taken care of by a revolver with hollow tip bullets. Farmers, ranchers and hunters do not need automatic fire arms. The purpose of target practice is to hit the bulls eye not spray the target. Any gun over the 357 caliber revolver needs to be regulated. Federal law needs to require that gun store owners finger print the purchasers of extremely high powered weapons and register them with a nationwide data base or shut them down. Problems come in with illegal purchase, theft and various criminal traffickers’. What got me started on this rant is a NY Times article trying to explain the shooter’s motivation. It does not matter what his motivation is/was. It does not matter what his intent was. I type his because I refuse to acknowledge his name. He killed and maimed hundreds of people at a peaceful gathering. No one needs to own as many guns.as he did. While I agree with the sentiment, he didn't NEED to own more than just one. One semi auto AR15 with a bumpfire stock, and 100 60 or 100 round SureFire magazines would keep a nut shooting for 1/2 an hour or longer. Bucket of water nearby to cool the barrel/rifle, and there is nothing going to stop him. This is just one of many full auto to fail videos, all without a bucket/water to cool it, just air cooled. 2500 rounds non stop, enough said? Also, a revolver, in any caliber, be it 38/357/44/whatever - I can reload one with speed loaders in under 2 seconds. I've seen guys who focus on revolvers do it much faster than that. Anyone can self train to reload a revolver in a few seconds. See where I'm going? While your concept has merit, the specific idea doesn't - one revolver in a major caliber, 50 speed loaders in a bag/on belt/whatever - 300 rounds of rapidly replenish-able ammunition for that "safer" revolver solution. I'll continue to repeat - even the most basic firearm in even untrained or little-trained hand, can be a massive threat. This isn't going to be fixed with restrictions on calibers and types, or magazine capacities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clegane'sPup Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 9 minutes ago, SerHaHa said: I can reload one with speed loaders in under 2 seconds. Interesting but you aren't going to kill and wound over 500 people hence my tirade that anything over the 357 caliber be regulated by finger print and put in a federal data base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 *facepalm* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said: *facepalm* ? You could probably label me as "pro-immigration" in a sense (although that term is a total oversimplification), but Lew is right here: that analogy is fundamentally flawed. It just isn't a good comparison--there are better ways to critique second amendment proponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 That was more at just the entire thread, sorry. Really, its fun to scream nd yell and each other here but no one is goign to convince anyone else of anything. I mean, like I;ve said, dead toddlers didn't change anything, why will this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clegane'sPup Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 16 minutes ago, IamMe90 said: there are better ways to critique second amendment proponents. I bare my arms every day during the summer months. I have no problem with an individual owning a single action six shooter, a single action rifle or a shot gun. I do have a problem with (maybe this condescending remark will get your attention) the weapons that the shooter used. A start in gun control in the US is requiring finger printing and a federal data base for any gun over the caliber of 357. A start not a solution. That does not go against the whoop whoop right to bare arms amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 Time to swoop in with a totally unnecessary (but nevertheless curiously satisyfing) dollop of pedantry. A single action revolver is not one that fires each time you pull the trigger. It is one where before every shot you first need to manually cock the hammer, and only then are you able to pull the trigger. Like them old cowboy six shooters. Not really ideal for a self defense situation. Unless you are Jerry Miculek. What Clegane above meant, I assume, was your standard modern double action revolver, which fires each time you pull the trigger. They too can be cocked first for greater accuracy since the trigger is then partially pulled back resulting in a lighter required trigger pull, but they can also be fired without having to cock the hammer before each shot. And yes, against a single assailant a revolver would be sufficient in most instances, I guess. If he is not too determined or drugged up. Of the 5-6 shots in the cylinder I guess one or two could be expected to hit your attacker in a high stress situation. And if you are fortunate, they might be enough to incapacitate him, depending on which part of the body you managed to hit. But the moment you need to fire more than 5 or 6 shots, revolvers become useless. Reloading a revolver under stress using speedloaders or what have you, is a recipe for disaster in my view. Anyway, end of frivolous, pedantic info dump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Kalbear said: And on this - because it is much harder and requires a lot more planning to kill yourself with a rope, and most people don't have a bottle of pills that they can take which will kill them (it's hard to OD on most anything without getting very sick first). Gun suicides are very often quite impulsive. We know that the rate of suicides drops dramatically by culture when gun availability is restricted. So it has quite a lot to do with the gun debate; the only reason it might not for you is that you believe that everyone should be able to kill themselves whenever they wish, which likely means you've never dealt with anyone suicidal in your life. Oh Kalbear and his assumptions. I've dealt with suicide, quite a few. 3 to be exact. All three done with a rope. And I live in gun-rotting, red-necking, Trump-loving WV. I would rather no one take their life. Why do make every post I make about me, who I am as a person? Get off my back. You know exactly Jack shit about me. Statistics, statistics, statistics. On this side to prove one thing, one the other to prove the opposite, and they're all weighted to benefit their argument. That's a fact Jack. People here claiming people who support the right to bear arms, a constitutional right, are being told the blood of innocents lie on their hands. You tell me, how you can have an honest conversation, that would lead to something actually being done with that kinda rhetoric being thrown around? Problem in this country is your either so far left, or so far right that your unable to think for yourself. You set in forums like these (liberal, very much so) and have your feelings and ideas confirmed on a daily basis. When someone puts forth something different their attacked and made assumptions about. Can't have a honest conversation that way. I expressed my opinion on the issue, and said I wasn't wanting to debate it. Been down that road. Rather not go back down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mother Cocanuts Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 4 hours ago, The Mance said: No. The only person in this thread who has claimed to know with any certainty how you would respond in an unexpected life or death combat situation, is you. All anyone else has been trying to convey is that it is absurd for you to claim to know how you would react. And I'm not sure how you can take away any sort of support for your opinion from SirHaHa's post. Even the parts that you bolded only reiterate the point that combat is stressful and reactions are varied and unpredictable. Also, I'm not sure what understanding the mechanical complexities of a weapon necessarily have to do with the stress of combat. I mean, sure, a completely unfamiliar device is going to add a different element of stress to an encounter, but there is a lot more to fighting for survival than just being able to operate a device. People freeze up and react badly when all they have to operate are their fists, or a club. And the whole point of what everyone has been saying to you (even sirHaHa) is precisely that it can be the unfamiliar stress of combat that makes some people forget all of that carefully learned proficiency. And what I have continued to repeat is that none of that matters to me. It isn't absurd for me to tell you with certainty how I'd react because I'm the primary observer of my own reactions, and behavior and I have had enough experience with myself to know how I'd react in a certain situation. You and the others are trying to attach to me the bias you maintain from other observations, but none of that has anything to do with me or my behavior. Even if there's a study that has studied a sample of a million people and how they'd react, unless I'm a part of that study, it can't tell you anything about how I would react. That would be illogical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 32 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said: Still strawmanning I see. Except the comment that he responded to was not refuting the legality of banning guns vs banning immigrants. It was pointing out the selective logic used by conservatives to defend one issue, while condemning another. Given that the Conservative stances on immigration and gun control both seem to be rooted in sheer terror, I actually find it to be a pretty appropriate analogy. But if the situations aren't analogous, then they don't highlight an inconsistent application of logic. They aren't analogous; Lew rightly points out an important distinction between the situations. It is certainly the case that citizens and non-citizens will enjoy a different degree of civil protections. Now, it just so happens that I disagree with anti-immigration people about protections non-citizens shouldn't enjoy; but that doesn't mean that those people are being logically inconsistent. *Shrug* If you disagree, that's fine, I don't have a big bone in this fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 15 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: Oh Kalbear and his assumptions. I've dealt with suicide, quite a few. 3 to be exact. All three done with a rope. And I live in gun-rotting, red-necking, Trump-loving WV. I would rather no one take their life. Why do make every post I make about me, who I am as a person? Get off my back. You know exactly Jack shit about me. Statistics, statistics, statistics. On this side to prove one thing, one the other to prove the opposite, and they're all weighted to benefit their argument. That's a fact Jack. People here claiming people who support the right to bear arms, a constitutional right, are being told the blood of innocents lie on their hands. You tell me, how you can have an honest conversation, that would lead to something actually being done with that kinda rhetoric being thrown around? Problem in this country is your either so far left, or so far right that your unable to think for yourself. You set in forums like these (liberal, very much so) and have your feelings and ideas confirmed on a daily basis. When someone puts forth something different their attacked and made assumptions about. Can't have a honest conversation that way. I expressed my opinion on the issue, and said I wasn't wanting to debate it. Been down that road. Rather not go back down. Why are you posting about something on a topic in a discussion forum devoted to, you know, discussion, if you don't want to critically engage with other people about that subject? Furthermore, why are you even bothering to respond to people who chose to critically engage with you, if you don't want to debate them? You could have just posted your thought, and left the topic. It'd be better than whining about people who are actually doing what this topic is meant for. Anyway, you aren't getting "attacked"; people are just pointing out that your "opinion" is actually just nonsensical. And deals with factual propositions, so it's not even an opinion, it's just you making wrong assertions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 12 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: Oh Kalbear and his assumptions. I've dealt with suicide, quite a few. 3 to be exact. All three done with a rope. And I live in gun-rotting, red-necking, Trump-loving WV. I would rather no one take their life. Why do make every post I make about me, who I am as a person? Get off my back. You know exactly Jack shit about me. I know you don't think gun control has to do with suicides, which is total bullshit. 12 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: Statistics, statistics, statistics. On this side to prove one thing, one the other to prove the opposite, and they're all weighted to benefit their argument. That's a fact Jack. Using data is a far cry better than pulling shit out of your ass and using that to justify policy. 12 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: People here claiming people who support the right to bear arms, a constitutional right, are being told the blood of innocents lie on their hands. You tell me, how you can have an honest conversation, that would lead to something actually being done with that kinda rhetoric being thrown around? They do though. It can be both. Freedoms often have a trade off in safety. Own it! 12 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: Problem in this country is your either so far left, or so far right that your unable to think for yourself. You set in forums like these (liberal, very much so) and have your feelings and ideas confirmed on a daily basis. When someone puts forth something different their attacked and made assumptions about. Can't have a honest conversation that way. I expressed my opinion on the issue, and said I wasn't wanting to debate it. Been down that road. Rather not go back down. If you don't want your opinion challenged, why state it at all? Sounds like you're the one who isn't interested in changing their mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 1 minute ago, Lew Theobald said: You may, but you will not be correct. Just do a pre-2008 google search, and you'll find arguments that the Second Amendment protects individual rights. Even those who argue that it is NOT an individual right are arguing against those who see it otherwise. But it is true that prior to 2008 there were plenty of legal authorities who had effectively ruled the Second Amendment out of existence. So, one political way to solve the "problem" of the Second Amendment would be to fill the court with enough judges who agree with that pre-2008 interpretation, and are willing to ignore the principle of stare decisis. You mean like all the judges who were willing to ignore the principle of stare decisis to the opposite effect in 2008? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clegane'sPup Posted October 8, 2017 Share Posted October 8, 2017 10 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said: Okay, if you're only hitting your target with one or two bullets for every six times you fire the weapon, you are probably more of a liability to your neighbors or family than the attacker is to you. I'd suggest getting an alarm system. Now if you are going to approach home defense from the "Spray and Pray" perspective, I would hope that you'd at least have the foresight to use hollow points over FMJ rounds, as the former is less likely to punch through your wall and kill your neighbor. Although bear in mind JHP ammunition is more expensive, so that may also be encouragement to actually stop and aim rather than firing indiscriminately into the darkness at random noises. I don't know what action movie you're living in, but I cannot imagine there are many home defense situations where you'd find yourself needing a speedloader. Yes, magazine-loaded guns can reload faster and hold more bullets, but they also require more maintenance. You can leave a revolver sitting in a lockbox for two years without touching it, then pick it up and it will be ready to go. You don't have to worry about spring-tension degradation, and if it jams or misfires all that you have to do to clear the chamber is pull the trigger again. Gun control. That is the question. I gave my thoughts Finger prints for anything over 357 caliber and federal data base. Do you have any thoughts on how to ease this shoot em up problem the US has? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clegane'sPup Posted October 8, 2017 Share Posted October 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said: In the short term? Treat it like a driver's license. Pass a test in order to get the LTC, and impose a requirement that this license be renewed every few years. Institute psychological screenings for PTSD or violent mood disorders. Start working on a plan to phase out assault rifles and some of the more deadly attachments. Most of all repeal the Dickey Amendment and allow the CDC to properly research gun violence. Nationwide, ummmmmmmm. does a police officer when he does his plate check know any of what you espoused above? Guns, my fellow poster. There is no way to track the guns or the threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted October 8, 2017 Share Posted October 8, 2017 7 hours ago, Altherion said: Well, well, well -- an openly stated truth for a change. But surely you realize that this attitude is why the Second Amendment people will fight you so unyieldingly? For a change? I've only stated it like a couple dozen times in this thread alone. And yeah, I absolutely realize that the fundamental parts of American identity are to blame for why people have stupid irrational obsessions with an outdated and misinterpreted amendment. There's nothing mysterious here. 2 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: Oh Kalbear and his assumptions. I've dealt with suicide, quite a few. 3 to be exact. All three done with a rope. And I live in gun-rotting, red-necking, Trump-loving WV. I would rather no one take their life. Why do make every post I make about me, who I am as a person? Get off my back. You know exactly Jack shit about me. Statistics, statistics, statistics. On this side to prove one thing, one the other to prove the opposite, and they're all weighted to benefit their argument. That's a fact Jack. People here claiming people who support the right to bear arms, a constitutional right, are being told the blood of innocents lie on their hands. You tell me, how you can have an honest conversation, that would lead to something actually being done with that kinda rhetoric being thrown around? Problem in this country is your either so far left, or so far right that your unable to think for yourself. You set in forums like these (liberal, very much so) and have your feelings and ideas confirmed on a daily basis. When someone puts forth something different their attacked and made assumptions about. Can't have a honest conversation that way. I expressed my opinion on the issue, and said I wasn't wanting to debate it. Been down that road. Rather not go back down. How the hell does that stop an honest conversation? I regularly vote for politicians who drop drone bombs on children. I'm complicit in the murders of dead children. This is brought up to me in discussions about the topics of war and American meddling. I couldn't imagine refusing to talk about any of it just because someone rightfully pointed out that I have innocent blood on my hands. I certainly wouldn't be delusional enough to deny. Also, newsflash, I (and most people who post here) regularly vote for candidates who continue to support gun identity and culture by not calling for repeal of 2A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted October 8, 2017 Share Posted October 8, 2017 Can you even repeal an amendment? I didn't think you could actually do that unless you call a constitutional convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted October 8, 2017 Share Posted October 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said: Can you even repeal an amendment? I didn't think you could actually do that unless you call a constitutional convention. Yeah, that's the way. It's pretty much a non starter in today's climate. For whatever reason, Americans are married to an outdated document and get wet thinking about the founding fathers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted October 8, 2017 Share Posted October 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said: Can you even repeal an amendment? I didn't think you could actually do that unless you call a constitutional convention. You can do it by passing another amendment. For example, the 21st Amendment repeals the 18th (prohibition) simply by saying that it does: Quote Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.