***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[5 digit know nothing]

Why don't you hang up and READ. There are some excellent posts about what the 2nd amendment was created for. Instead of worrying about numbers and statistics try to focus on the intended purpose.

Your whole conservation is pointless and not germane to the issue at hand.

Any statistic or number you produce means squat as to the 2nd amendment.

There's a constitutional dimension and a public policy dimension to any course that people set. Not every argument, and indeed almost none of them, will fit neatly into both boxes.I've made clear my views on the 2nd Amendment. I think it's antiquated for the purposes of preventing government tyranny and should be scrapped and reconstituted to enshrine the value of defending one's home. The types of weapons that that type of right would protect are very different from our current jurisprudence.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are absolutely wrong. That is EXACTLY why it was written. They specifically did not ant the States or Federal Government to be able to disarm the People.

You think your guns can protect you from the government? You should make a journey out of the holler someday to the Department of Defense's Open House at Andrews Air Force Base. I'm pretty sure "the government" has you pretty well out-gunned. The second amendment is completely antiquated. It was also a provision made by fallible men, not a divine entity. Amendments are by nature adjustments to existing things. Why would anybody think they are iron-clad and unadjustable themselves?

What are you advocating scorched earth? The government is going to force their policies by blowing up states? You are 100% correct if you believe this, you are also 100%

 

[fatness]

Why would you have guns and not have them loaded? Typically I have a 9mm loaded. but not chambered at one end of the house, out of sight but not out of reach. I have a loaded semi-automatic 20ga shotgun at the bedroom end of the house, loaded, chambered with the safety on and my Judge (revolver) in whatever part of the house that I happen to be in and yes if I am outside it is handy but not visible. When ever I leave the house the Judge is in a little glove box holder that sits in front of the passenger seat. It is left open but can be closed with the push of a button. It does not bother my wife sitting there right in front of her.Right now I am sitting here in my Man Cave with my Judge sitting on my computer desk. I also have 3 small dogs that let me know if someone is walking up the driveway or in the back yard. I do not go to the front door without the Judge in my hand. Family is used to me opening the front door (window on top) with a gun in my right hand. It is not an issue nor is it a threat or dangerous.I do not live in a "dangerous" neighbor hood but my neighbors are not what I am concerned about. Car Jackings and Home Invasions are very real in today's society. It is just a fact and I would rather be prepared than a victim.

Good lord.

 

[Apple Jack]

Why don't you hang up and READ. There are some excellent posts about what the 2nd amendment was created for. Instead of worrying about numbers and statistics try to focus on the intended purpose.

Your whole conservation is pointless and not germane to the issue at hand.

Any statistic or number you produce means squat as to the 2nd amendment.

There's a constitutional dimension and a public policy dimension to any course that people set. Not every argument, and indeed almost none of them, will fit neatly into both boxes.I've made clear my views on the 2nd Amendment. I think it's antiquated for the purposes of preventing government tyranny and should be scrapped and reconstituted to enshrine the value of defending one's home. The types of weapons that that type of right would protect are very different from our current jurisprudence.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are absolutely wrong. That is EXACTLY why it was written. They specifically did not ant the States or Federal Government to be able to disarm the People.

You think your guns can protect you from the government? You should make a journey out of the holler someday to the Department of Defense's Open House at Andrews Air Force Base. I'm pretty sure "the government" has you pretty well out-gunned. The second amendment is completely antiquated. It was also a provision made by fallible men, not a divine entity. Amendments are by nature adjustments to existing things. Why would anybody think they are iron-clad and unadjustable themselves?

What are you advocating scorched earth? The government is going to force their policies by blowing up states? You are 100% correct if you believe this, you are also 100%

Right, I'm the one who is here.

 

[Apple Jack]

And they don't blow up states at the Andrews show. Hth.

 

[Otis]

Why would you have guns and not have them loaded? Typically I have a 9mm loaded. but not chambered at one end of the house, out of sight but not out of reach. I have a loaded semi-automatic 20ga shotgun at the bedroom end of the house, loaded, chambered with the safety on and my Judge (revolver) in whatever part of the house that I happen to be in and yes if I am outside it is handy but not visible. When ever I leave the house the Judge is in a little glove box holder that sits in front of the passenger seat. It is left open but can be closed with the push of a button. It does not bother my wife sitting there right in front of her.Right now I am sitting here in my Man Cave with my Judge sitting on my computer desk. I also have 3 small dogs that let me know if someone is walking up the driveway or in the back yard. I do not go to the front door without the Judge in my hand. Family is used to me opening the front door (window on top) with a gun in my right hand. It is not an issue nor is it a threat or dangerous.I do not live in a "dangerous" neighbor hood but my neighbors are not what I am concerned about. Car Jackings and Home Invasions are very real in today's society. It is just a fact and I would rather be prepared than a victim.

Good lord.

Batcrap insane.America 2012. #### YEAH!!!

 

[timschochet]

Someday in the future there will, perhaps be firearms with added compartments, and these compartments will allow one to fire 30 or 100 bullets without the necessity of reloading. Any attempt to limit such a magnificent weapon would be a clear infringement on our Bill of Rights and personal liberty.

- Thomas Jefferson, in a private letter, 1801

If the federal government should require licensed gun sellers to record their sales, this shall be permitted under the Second Amendment. However, if this requirement is extended to private sales, that would be a violation of the Second Amendment.

- Alexander Hamilton, writing to his sister, 1799

This legit?

Of course.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Why would you have guns and not have them loaded? Typically I have a 9mm loaded. but not chambered at one end of the house, out of sight but not out of reach. I have a loaded semi-automatic 20ga shotgun at the bedroom end of the house, loaded, chambered with the safety on and my Judge (revolver) in whatever part of the house that I happen to be in and yes if I am outside it is handy but not visible. When ever I leave the house the Judge is in a little glove box holder that sits in front of the passenger seat. It is left open but can be closed with the push of a button. It does not bother my wife sitting there right in front of her.Right now I am sitting here in my Man Cave with my Judge sitting on my computer desk. I also have 3 small dogs that let me know if someone is walking up the driveway or in the back yard. I do not go to the front door without the Judge in my hand. Family is used to me opening the front door (window on top) with a gun in my right hand. It is not an issue nor is it a threat or dangerous.I do not live in a "dangerous" neighbor hood but my neighbors are not what I am concerned about. Car Jackings and Home Invasions are very real in today's society. It is just a fact and I would rather be prepared than a victim.

Good lord.

Batcrap insane.America 2012. #### YEAH!!!

How are you not banned on these forums yet?The fact that someone thinks differently than you means they are "batcrap insane"? Typically SOP for progressives like yourself. Good thing we have a written constitution to prevent knee-jerk, drama queens like yourself from screwing everyone else over.You can go back to your safe area under the kitchen table now.

 

[Apple Jack]

A private letter?

 

[Hoosier16]

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

The Virginia Tech committee report determined that if he had revolvers with speed loaders it would have been just as deadly.

Not exactly. The committee found, in that particular situation, 10 round clips vs. 15 wouldn't have made much difference, and a revolver with speed loaders could have been about as deadly.

My point exactly.

This seems to be continually ignored. The term "Semi-automatic" gets thrown around with different meanings. With respect to preventing or reducing the mass shootings, can someone from the control side explain exactly where the line should be drawn? Exactly how many shots should you be allowed to fire before having to reload? At what point do you reduce the mass shootings without infringing on an individual's ability to defend themselves?

 

[Apple Jack]

Why would you have guns and not have them loaded? Typically I have a 9mm loaded. but not chambered at one end of the house, out of sight but not out of reach. I have a loaded semi-automatic 20ga shotgun at the bedroom end of the house, loaded, chambered with the safety on and my Judge (revolver) in whatever part of the house that I happen to be in and yes if I am outside it is handy but not visible. When ever I leave the house the Judge is in a little glove box holder that sits in front of the passenger seat. It is left open but can be closed with the push of a button. It does not bother my wife sitting there right in front of her.Right now I am sitting here in my Man Cave with my Judge sitting on my computer desk. I also have 3 small dogs that let me know if someone is walking up the driveway or in the back yard. I do not go to the front door without the Judge in my hand. Family is used to me opening the front door (window on top) with a gun in my right hand. It is not an issue nor is it a threat or dangerous.I do not live in a "dangerous" neighbor hood but my neighbors are not what I am concerned about. Car Jackings and Home Invasions are very real in today's society. It is just a fact and I would rather be prepared than a victim.

Good lord.

Batcrap insane.America 2012. #### YEAH!!!

How are you not banned on these forums yet?The fact that someone thinks differently than you means they are "batcrap insane"? Typically SOP for progressives like yourself. Good thing we have a written constitution to prevent knee-jerk, drama queens like yourself from screwing everyone else over.You can go back to your safe area under the kitchen table now.

The second amendment wasn't in the Constitution any more than an amendment drafted tomorrow would be. Get it? The constitution is a fluid document by design.

 

[Apple Jack]

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

The Virginia Tech committee report determined that if he had revolvers with speed loaders it would have been just as deadly.

Not exactly. The committee found, in that particular situation, 10 round clips vs. 15 wouldn't have made much difference, and a revolver with speed loaders could have been about as deadly.

My point exactly.

This seems to be continually ignored. The term "Semi-automatic" gets thrown around with different meanings. With respect to preventing or reducing the mass shootings, can someone from the control side explain exactly where the line should be drawn? Exactly how many shots should you be allowed to fire before having to reload? At what point do you reduce the mass shootings without infringing on an individual's ability to defend themselves?

One shot before reloading.

 

[Hoosier16]

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

The Virginia Tech committee report determined that if he had revolvers with speed loaders it would have been just as deadly.

Not exactly. The committee found, in that particular situation, 10 round clips vs. 15 wouldn't have made much difference, and a revolver with speed loaders could have been about as deadly.

My point exactly.

This seems to be continually ignored. The term "Semi-automatic" gets thrown around with different meanings. With respect to preventing or reducing the mass shootings, can someone from the control side explain exactly where the line should be drawn? Exactly how many shots should you be allowed to fire before having to reload? At what point do you reduce the mass shootings without infringing on an individual's ability to defend themselves?

One shot before reloading.

And that doesn't infringe on your ability to defend?

 

[Cookiemonster]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how the North Hollywood Shooters went back in time three or four years to get the feds to enact the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the assault weapons ban).

That was a whoops. On a couple different forums and got lines of thinking crossed. I'd also like to correct myself in the round count. 2000 total. 1100 by the criminals.

Does it change your opinion of the law at all thaat it absolutely was not enacted based on the premise that you thought was ridiculous and inappropriate?

Does it not make it more ridiculous and inappropriate that it was enacted purely on fear, prejudice and cosmetic features, not on preventing crime, violence and effective features? I think we would all feel better about their attempts if it were based off reaction to a Hollywood shootout, or Columbine or some other tragedy, not that it would change the ineffectiveness of such a policy. No, it was based off of what they thought the population wanted but instead was proven wrong resulting in a big turnover during the following elections. The same fear that the anti-gunners pushed through last time is being pushed again via CNN, CBS, NBC and the politicians themselves (Fast and Furious, anyone?). The fact that so few violent crimes are committed with rifles and such a small percentage of rifle crimes are committed with rifles having evil cosmetic features makes "assault weapons" bans a bureaucratic folly and financial (enforcement and legislative) and liberal (2nd amendment) mistake.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Why don't you hang up and READ. There are some excellent posts about what the 2nd amendment was created for. Instead of worrying about numbers and statistics try to focus on the intended purpose. Your whole conservation is pointless and not germane to the issue at hand. Any statistic or number you produce means squat as to the 2nd amendment.

There's a constitutional dimension and a public policy dimension to any course that people set. Not every argument, and indeed almost none of them, will fit neatly into both boxes.I've made clear my views on the 2nd Amendment. I think it's antiquated for the purposes of preventing government tyranny and should be scrapped and reconstituted to enshrine the value of defending one's home. The types of weapons that that type of right would protect are very different from our current jurisprudence.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are absolutely wrong. That is EXACTLY why it was written. They specifically did not ant the States or Federal Government to be able to disarm the People.

You think your guns can protect you from the government? You should make a journey out of the holler someday to the Department of Defense's Open House at Andrews Air Force Base. I'm pretty sure "the government" has you pretty well out-gunned. The second amendment is completely antiquated. It was also a provision made by fallible men, not a divine entity. Amendments are by nature adjustments to existing things. Why would anybody think they are iron-clad and unadjustable themselves?

Jeebus, here we go again, the US Military is a volunteer military. If the government go so tyrannical as to have to fight it's own people do you think that this volunteer force would turn their tanks and M1A1s on their own families? The people would also outnumber the Military 1000 to one, not counting the ones coming over to the peoples side, which would be most of them. I am not talking today or tomorrow or even in your lifetime but you do not know what this country will look like in 50 years.There is a way to change the 2nd Amendment, but it us difficult FOR A REASON.

 

[timschochet]

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

The Virginia Tech committee report determined that if he had revolvers with speed loaders it would have been just as deadly.

Not exactly. The committee found, in that particular situation, 10 round clips vs. 15 wouldn't have made much difference, and a revolver with speed loaders could have been about as deadly.

My point exactly.

This seems to be continually ignored. The term "Semi-automatic" gets thrown around with different meanings. With respect to preventing or reducing the mass shootings, can someone from the control side explain exactly where the line should be drawn? Exactly how many shots should you be allowed to fire before having to reload? At what point do you reduce the mass shootings without infringing on an individual's ability to defend themselves?

One shot before reloading.

And that doesn't infringe on your ability to defend?

Apple Jack is an originalist.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

And they don't blow up states at the Andrews show. Hth.

Enlighten me, What are they showcasing as being effective against millions of people with guns?

 

[Hoosier16]

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

The Virginia Tech committee report determined that if he had revolvers with speed loaders it would have been just as deadly.

Not exactly. The committee found, in that particular situation, 10 round clips vs. 15 wouldn't have made much difference, and a revolver with speed loaders could have been about as deadly.

My point exactly.

This seems to be continually ignored. The term "Semi-automatic" gets thrown around with different meanings. With respect to preventing or reducing the mass shootings, can someone from the control side explain exactly where the line should be drawn? Exactly how many shots should you be allowed to fire before having to reload? At what point do you reduce the mass shootings without infringing on an individual's ability to defend themselves?

One shot before reloading.

And that doesn't infringe on your ability to defend?

Apple Jack is an originalist.

I wouldn't expect him to respond because it clearly affects a person's ability to defend themselves. Does anyone else want to give a reasonable answer?

 

[Apple Jack]

Wait, the military is voluntary? I can join and then just bail if I don't get assigned to pearl city?? Sweet!

 

[tom22406]

My rule of thumb is that the Founders would have permitted no less than the types of firearms used by domestic law enforcement. Their objection to a standing army was not, primarily, the fear of engaging in military adventures abroad, but rather that the government might use it to oppress the people. Madison, however, argued that a standing army was no threat to a People equally well-armed who vastly outnumbered it.

Alright, we all admit that we cannot tolerate private possession of nuclear arms; on the other hand, our military services are forbidden to participate in domestic law enforcement. As long as the latter remains so, the “military” is not the standing army of concern. That concern falls on police — bodies of professional men-at-arms who take orders from government officials. This is the Standing Army that might threaten our liberty — unless the people, who vastly outnumber it — are equally well-armed.

Now, if there is a type of weapon that is too terrible for use in domestic law-enforcement, then you might ban it also from possession by common citizens. So that the police could confiscate these weapons, an exception might be granted to them for possession — but certainly not for use by the police. Any type of weapon that police and Presidential bodyguards are allowed to use, private citizens must be allowed to own and use as well — at the very least.

A people that is as well-armed as the police ensures that the police remain the servant of the people and not, instead, the servant of their Masters.

Call me crazy all you want but that is how I feel.

 

[Apple Jack]

And they don't blow up states at the Andrews show. Hth.

Enlighten me, What are they showcasing as being effective against millions of people with guns?

Um...nothing. You're right, the united states military wouldn't stand a chance against jethro, two cents, and max. They haven't made any strides since the civil war which the fellas alllllllmost pulled out, so it really could break either way.

 

[Glass Joe]

My rule of thumb is that the Founders would have permitted no less than the types of firearms used by domestic law enforcement. Their objection to a standing army was not, primarily, the fear of engaging in military adventures abroad, but rather that the government might use it to oppress the people. Madison, however, argued that a standing army was no threat to a People equally well-armed who vastly outnumbered it. Alright, we all admit that we cannot tolerate private possession of nuclear arms; on the other hand, our military services are forbidden to participate in domestic law enforcement. As long as the latter remains so, the “military” is not the standing army of concern. That concern falls on police — bodies of professional men-at-arms who take orders from government officials. This is the Standing Army that might threaten our liberty — unless the people, who vastly outnumber it — are equally well-armed. Now, if there is a type of weapon that is too terrible for use in domestic law-enforcement, then you might ban it also from possession by common citizens. So that the police could confiscate these weapons, an exception might be granted to them for possession — but certainly not for use by the police. Any type of weapon that police and Presidential bodyguards are allowed to use, private citizens must be allowed to own and use as well — at the very least. A people that is as well-armed as the police ensures that the police remain the servant of the people and not, instead, the servant of their Masters.Call me crazy all you want but that is how I feel.

Yep. You're crazy.

 

[timschochet]

My rule of thumb is that the Founders would have permitted no less than the types of firearms used by domestic law enforcement. Their objection to a standing army was not, primarily, the fear of engaging in military adventures abroad, but rather that the government might use it to oppress the people. Madison, however, argued that a standing army was no threat to a People equally well-armed who vastly outnumbered it. Alright, we all admit that we cannot tolerate private possession of nuclear arms; on the other hand, our military services are forbidden to participate in domestic law enforcement. As long as the latter remains so, the “military” is not the standing army of concern. That concern falls on police — bodies of professional men-at-arms who take orders from government officials. This is the Standing Army that might threaten our liberty — unless the people, who vastly outnumber it — are equally well-armed. Now, if there is a type of weapon that is too terrible for use in domestic law-enforcement, then you might ban it also from possession by common citizens. So that the police could confiscate these weapons, an exception might be granted to them for possession — but certainly not for use by the police. Any type of weapon that police and Presidential bodyguards are allowed to use, private citizens must be allowed to own and use as well — at the very least. A people that is as well-armed as the police ensures that the police remain the servant of the people and not, instead, the servant of their Masters.Call me crazy all you want but that is how I feel.

Don't the police keep records of every firearm that is owned, even a record of every bullet that is fired?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Wait, the military is voluntary? I can join and then just bail if I don't get assigned to pearl city?? Sweet!

If you did join, you would be limited to what you can do. Women can't serve in combat roles.

 

[Apple Jack]

Wait, the military is voluntary? I can join and then just bail if I don't get assigned to pearl city?? Sweet!

If you did join, you would be limited to what you can do. Women can't serve in combat roles.

Your new "I'm tough because I need a gun to defend myself from things that arent even there" schtick has been money.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

The claim that an armed populace cannot successfully resist assault stems from an unproved theory.

The twentieth century provides no example of a determined populace with access to small arms having been defeated by a modern army. The Russians lost in Afghanistan, the United States lost in Vietnam, and the French lost in Indo-China. In each case, it was the poorly armed populace that beat the "modern" army. In China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, the established leaders, Chiang Kai-shek, Battista, and Somoza lost. Modern nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe only exist because guerrilla warfare can triumph over modern armies. While we may not approve of all the resulting governments, each of these triumphs tells a simple truth: a determined people who have the means to maintain prolonged war against a modern army can battle it to a standstill, subverting major portions of the army or defeating it themselves or with major arms supplied by outside forces.

The Founders’ purpose in guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms was not merely to overthrow tyrants. They saw the right to arms as crucial to what they believed was a prime natural right-self-defense.

 

[cobalt_27]

My rule of thumb is that the Founders would have permitted no less than the types of firearms used by domestic law enforcement. Their objection to a standing army was not, primarily, the fear of engaging in military adventures abroad, but rather that the government might use it to oppress the people. Madison, however, argued that a standing army was no threat to a People equally well-armed who vastly outnumbered it. Alright, we all admit that we cannot tolerate private possession of nuclear arms; on the other hand, our military services are forbidden to participate in domestic law enforcement. As long as the latter remains so, the “military” is not the standing army of concern. That concern falls on police — bodies of professional men-at-arms who take orders from government officials. This is the Standing Army that might threaten our liberty — unless the people, who vastly outnumber it — are equally well-armed. Now, if there is a type of weapon that is too terrible for use in domestic law-enforcement, then you might ban it also from possession by common citizens. So that the police could confiscate these weapons, an exception might be granted to them for possession — but certainly not for use by the police. Any type of weapon that police and Presidential bodyguards are allowed to use, private citizens must be allowed to own and use as well — at the very least. A people that is as well-armed as the police ensures that the police remain the servant of the people and not, instead, the servant of their Masters.Call me crazy all you want but that is how I feel.

Yep. You're crazy.

I second this. On bat #### levels.And, this is truly not a matter of a difference of opinion. What's on display here is absolutely the product of an irrational mode of thinking, reflecting at its core both paranoia and poor reality testing.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Why don't you hang up and READ. There are some excellent posts about what the 2nd amendment was created for. Instead of worrying about numbers and statistics try to focus on the intended purpose. Your whole conservation is pointless and not germane to the issue at hand. Any statistic or number you produce means squat as to the 2nd amendment.

There's a constitutional dimension and a public policy dimension to any course that people set. Not every argument, and indeed almost none of them, will fit neatly into both boxes.I've made clear my views on the 2nd Amendment. I think it's antiquated for the purposes of preventing government tyranny and should be scrapped and reconstituted to enshrine the value of defending one's home. The types of weapons that that type of right would protect are very different from our current jurisprudence.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are absolutely wrong. That is EXACTLY why it was written. They specifically did not ant the States or Federal Government to be able to disarm the People.

You think your guns can protect you from the government? You should make a journey out of the holler someday to the Department of Defense's Open House at Andrews Air Force Base. I'm pretty sure "the government" has you pretty well out-gunned.

Afghanistan held off Soviet Russia for quite a while, and our dominant military has been pretty well held at bay by these guys who are mostly armed with $100 Mosin rifles. Vietnam did pretty well agains us too.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

The Virginia Tech committee report determined that if he had revolvers with speed loaders it would have been just as deadly.

Not exactly. The committee found, in that particular situation, 10 round clips vs. 15 wouldn't have made much difference, and a revolver with speed loaders could have been about as deadly.

My point exactly.

This seems to be continually ignored. The term "Semi-automatic" gets thrown around with different meanings. With respect to preventing or reducing the mass shootings, can someone from the control side explain exactly where the line should be drawn? Exactly how many shots should you be allowed to fire before having to reload? At what point do you reduce the mass shootings without infringing on an individual's ability to defend themselves?

I personally think the line should be drawn at anything with a magazine. As I've said before, even if you take the gun lobby's own numbers on defensive uses of guns, they demonstrate that the vast majority of the time a gun is used for legitimate protection it isn't even fired once, let alone needing to be reloaded quickly or have high capacity to begin with. I certainly don't think that would stop every shooting but I think it would save lives in nearly every instance that someone sets out intent to kill a large number of people, without making a practical difference in the defensive and recreational uses.

 

[tom22406]

My rule of thumb is that the Founders would have permitted no less than the types of firearms used by domestic law enforcement. Their objection to a standing army was not, primarily, the fear of engaging in military adventures abroad, but rather that the government might use it to oppress the people. Madison, however, argued that a standing army was no threat to a People equally well-armed who vastly outnumbered it. Alright, we all admit that we cannot tolerate private possession of nuclear arms; on the other hand, our military services are forbidden to participate in domestic law enforcement. As long as the latter remains so, the “military” is not the standing army of concern. That concern falls on police — bodies of professional men-at-arms who take orders from government officials. This is the Standing Army that might threaten our liberty — unless the people, who vastly outnumber it — are equally well-armed. Now, if there is a type of weapon that is too terrible for use in domestic law-enforcement, then you might ban it also from possession by common citizens. So that the police could confiscate these weapons, an exception might be granted to them for possession — but certainly not for use by the police. Any type of weapon that police and Presidential bodyguards are allowed to use, private citizens must be allowed to own and use as well — at the very least. A people that is as well-armed as the police ensures that the police remain the servant of the people and not, instead, the servant of their Masters.Call me crazy all you want but that is how I feel.

Don't the police keep records of every firearm that is owned, even a record of every bullet that is fired?

You see Tim,I too can post things to stir the pot.Really easy to do as you have already shown us.

 

[Apple Jack]

Why don't you hang up and READ. There are some excellent posts about what the 2nd amendment was created for. Instead of worrying about numbers and statistics try to focus on the intended purpose. Your whole conservation is pointless and not germane to the issue at hand. Any statistic or number you produce means squat as to the 2nd amendment.

There's a constitutional dimension and a public policy dimension to any course that people set. Not every argument, and indeed almost none of them, will fit neatly into both boxes.I've made clear my views on the 2nd Amendment. I think it's antiquated for the purposes of preventing government tyranny and should be scrapped and reconstituted to enshrine the value of defending one's home. The types of weapons that that type of right would protect are very different from our current jurisprudence.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are absolutely wrong. That is EXACTLY why it was written. They specifically did not ant the States or Federal Government to be able to disarm the People.

You think your guns can protect you from the government? You should make a journey out of the holler someday to the Department of Defense's Open House at Andrews Air Force Base. I'm pretty sure "the government" has you pretty well out-gunned.

Afghanistan held off Soviet Russia for quite a while, and our dominant military has been pretty well held at bay by these guys who are mostly armed with $100 Mosin rifles. Vietnam did pretty well agains us too.

And you think these things are comparable to Americans taking on the 2012 US military?

 

[jonessed]

My rule of thumb is that the Founders would have permitted no less than the types of firearms used by domestic law enforcement. Their objection to a standing army was not, primarily, the fear of engaging in military adventures abroad, but rather that the government might use it to oppress the people. Madison, however, argued that a standing army was no threat to a People equally well-armed who vastly outnumbered it. Alright, we all admit that we cannot tolerate private possession of nuclear arms; on the other hand, our military services are forbidden to participate in domestic law enforcement. As long as the latter remains so, the “military” is not the standing army of concern. That concern falls on police — bodies of professional men-at-arms who take orders from government officials. This is the Standing Army that might threaten our liberty — unless the people, who vastly outnumber it — are equally well-armed. Now, if there is a type of weapon that is too terrible for use in domestic law-enforcement, then you might ban it also from possession by common citizens. So that the police could confiscate these weapons, an exception might be granted to them for possession — but certainly not for use by the police. Any type of weapon that police and Presidential bodyguards are allowed to use, private citizens must be allowed to own and use as well — at the very least. A people that is as well-armed as the police ensures that the police remain the servant of the people and not, instead, the servant of their Masters.Call me crazy all you want but that is how I feel.

Yep. You're crazy.

I second this. On bat #### levels.And, this is truly not a matter of a difference of opinion. What's on display here is absolutely the product of an irrational mode of thinking, reflecting at its core both paranoia and poor reality testing.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Wait, the military is voluntary? I can join and then just bail if I don't get assigned to pearl city?? Sweet!

If you did join, you would be limited to what you can do. Women can't serve in combat roles.

Your new "I'm tough because I need a gun to defend myself from things that arent even there and will never be there in the future, we will never experience riots like we have in the last 20 years such as the after effects of the Rodney King trial in which 53 were killed and 2 thousand were injured, nor will the US citizens ever feel the need to defend themselves during times of catastrophe like Katrina or Sandy, nor will we ever have to fear about defending our families at any point due to to armed break-ins, because Apple Jack says we live in a world of rainbows and unicorns" schtick has been money.

Fixed that for you.

 

[fatness]

The claim that an armed populace cannot successfully resist assault stems from an unproved theory.

The twentieth century provides no example of a determined populace with access to small arms having been defeated by a modern army. The Russians lost in Afghanistan, the United States lost in Vietnam, and the French lost in Indo-China. In each case, it was the poorly armed populace that beat the "modern" army. In China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, the established leaders, Chiang Kai-shek, Battista, and Somoza lost. Modern nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe only exist because guerrilla warfare can triumph over modern armies. While we may not approve of all the resulting governments, each of these triumphs tells a simple truth: a determined people who have the means to maintain prolonged war against a modern army can battle it to a standstill, subverting major portions of the army or defeating it themselves or with major arms supplied by outside forces.

Don't shoot me for saying this, but you should probably post a link instead of pretending those are your words.link

"The twentieth century provides no example of a determined populace with access to small arms having been defeated by a modern army. The Russians lost in Afghanistan, the United States lost in Vietnam, and the French lost in Indo-China. In each case, it was the poorly armed populace that beat the 'modern' army. In China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, the established leaders, Chiang Kai-shek, Battista, and Somoza lost. Modern nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe only exist because guerrilla warfare can triumph over modern armies. While we may not approve of all the resulting governments, each of these triumphs tells a simple truth: a determined people who have the means to maintain prolonged war against a modern army can battle it to a standstill ..." (Guns, Crime, and Freedom, Op. cit.)

 

[tom22406]

My rule of thumb is that the Founders would have permitted no less than the types of firearms used by domestic law enforcement. Their objection to a standing army was not, primarily, the fear of engaging in military adventures abroad, but rather that the government might use it to oppress the people. Madison, however, argued that a standing army was no threat to a People equally well-armed who vastly outnumbered it. Alright, we all admit that we cannot tolerate private possession of nuclear arms; on the other hand, our military services are forbidden to participate in domestic law enforcement. As long as the latter remains so, the “military” is not the standing army of concern. That concern falls on police — bodies of professional men-at-arms who take orders from government officials. This is the Standing Army that might threaten our liberty — unless the people, who vastly outnumber it — are equally well-armed. Now, if there is a type of weapon that is too terrible for use in domestic law-enforcement, then you might ban it also from possession by common citizens. So that the police could confiscate these weapons, an exception might be granted to them for possession — but certainly not for use by the police. Any type of weapon that police and Presidential bodyguards are allowed to use, private citizens must be allowed to own and use as well — at the very least. A people that is as well-armed as the police ensures that the police remain the servant of the people and not, instead, the servant of their Masters.Call me crazy all you want but that is how I feel.

Yep. You're crazy.

I second this. On bat #### levels.And, this is truly not a matter of a difference of opinion. What's on display here is absolutely the product of an irrational mode of thinking, reflecting at its core both paranoia and poor reality testing.

That was too easy

 

[parasaurolophus]

I am actually not sure who I think are stranger. The people that have emergency preparations for some sort of civil war or the people that think such an event is 100% impossible.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

The claim that an armed populace cannot successfully resist assault stems from an unproved theory.

The twentieth century provides no example of a determined populace with access to small arms having been defeated by a modern army. The Russians lost in Afghanistan, the United States lost in Vietnam, and the French lost in Indo-China. In each case, it was the poorly armed populace that beat the "modern" army. In China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, the established leaders, Chiang Kai-shek, Battista, and Somoza lost. Modern nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe only exist because guerrilla warfare can triumph over modern armies. While we may not approve of all the resulting governments, each of these triumphs tells a simple truth: a determined people who have the means to maintain prolonged war against a modern army can battle it to a standstill, subverting major portions of the army or defeating it themselves or with major arms supplied by outside forces.

Don't shoot me for saying this, but you should probably post a link instead of pretending those are your words.link

"The twentieth century provides no example of a determined populace with access to small arms having been defeated by a modern army. The Russians lost in Afghanistan, the United States lost in Vietnam, and the French lost in Indo-China. In each case, it was the poorly armed populace that beat the 'modern' army. In China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, the established leaders, Chiang Kai-shek, Battista, and Somoza lost. Modern nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe only exist because guerrilla warfare can triumph over modern armies. While we may not approve of all the resulting governments, each of these triumphs tells a simple truth: a determined people who have the means to maintain prolonged war against a modern army can battle it to a standstill ..." (Guns, Crime, and Freedom, Op. cit.)

I wouldn't shoot you, we have the 1st amendment still, I didn't say they were my words, they were examples. I will try to remember to use footnotes on every post from now on.But if you break into my house at night, then I not only have the right to shoot you but the obligation. I could use either my semi-automatic shotgun or semi-automatic 9mm.

 

[Hoosier16]

This is exactly why semi-automatics are so much more lethal in these mass shooting instances. I haven't seen any statistical data that suggests semi-automatic handguns are safer than revolvers in a household setting.

The Virginia Tech committee report determined that if he had revolvers with speed loaders it would have been just as deadly.

Not exactly. The committee found, in that particular situation, 10 round clips vs. 15 wouldn't have made much difference, and a revolver with speed loaders could have been about as deadly.

My point exactly.

This seems to be continually ignored. The term "Semi-automatic" gets thrown around with different meanings. With respect to preventing or reducing the mass shootings, can someone from the control side explain exactly where the line should be drawn? Exactly how many shots should you be allowed to fire before having to reload? At what point do you reduce the mass shootings without infringing on an individual's ability to defend themselves?

I personally think the line should be drawn at anything with a magazine. As I've said before, even if you take the gun lobby's own numbers on defensive uses of guns, they demonstrate that the vast majority of the time a gun is used for legitimate protection it isn't even fired once, let alone needing to be reloaded quickly or have high capacity to begin with. I certainly don't think that would stop every shooting but I think it would save lives in nearly every instance that someone sets out intent to kill a large number of people, without making a practical difference in the defensive and recreational uses.

Does that mean you're okay with a revolver but not with a pistol with a magazine? That doesn't make much sense. Or, are you suggesting only a single shot before reloading?

 

[fatness]

I wouldn't shoot you, we have the 1st amendment still, I didn't say they were my words, they were examples. I will try to remember to use footnotes on every post from now on.But if you break into my house at night, then I not only have the right to shoot you but the obligation. I could use either my semi-automatic shotgun or semi-automatic 9mm.

Better go out and check now. I might be lurking right outside.

 

[cobalt_27]

The claim that an armed populace cannot successfully resist assault stems from an unproved theory.

The twentieth century provides no example of a determined populace with access to small arms having been defeated by a modern army. The Russians lost in Afghanistan, the United States lost in Vietnam, and the French lost in Indo-China. In each case, it was the poorly armed populace that beat the "modern" army. In China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, the established leaders, Chiang Kai-shek, Battista, and Somoza lost. Modern nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe only exist because guerrilla warfare can triumph over modern armies. While we may not approve of all the resulting governments, each of these triumphs tells a simple truth: a determined people who have the means to maintain prolonged war against a modern army can battle it to a standstill, subverting major portions of the army or defeating it themselves or with major arms supplied by outside forces.

Don't shoot me for saying this, but you should probably post a link instead of pretending those are your words.link

"The twentieth century provides no example of a determined populace with access to small arms having been defeated by a modern army. The Russians lost in Afghanistan, the United States lost in Vietnam, and the French lost in Indo-China. In each case, it was the poorly armed populace that beat the 'modern' army. In China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, the established leaders, Chiang Kai-shek, Battista, and Somoza lost. Modern nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe only exist because guerrilla warfare can triumph over modern armies. While we may not approve of all the resulting governments, each of these triumphs tells a simple truth: a determined people who have the means to maintain prolonged war against a modern army can battle it to a standstill ..." (Guns, Crime, and Freedom, Op. cit.)

Intellectual plagiarism is the rule with these folks; not surprising, as it's so challenging to detect any independent thought or analysis from this side.

 

[cobalt_27]

I am actually not sure who I think are stranger. The people that have emergency preparations for some sort of civil war or the people that think such an event is 100% impossible.

I don't think anyone here believes it is impossible. Unlikely, perhaps. But, certainly not possible. Which is why I support the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, with only reasonable equivocation.

 

[tom22406]

The claim that an armed populace cannot successfully resist assault stems from an unproved theory.

The twentieth century provides no example of a determined populace with access to small arms having been defeated by a modern army. The Russians lost in Afghanistan, the United States lost in Vietnam, and the French lost in Indo-China. In each case, it was the poorly armed populace that beat the "modern" army. In China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, the established leaders, Chiang Kai-shek, Battista, and Somoza lost. Modern nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe only exist because guerrilla warfare can triumph over modern armies. While we may not approve of all the resulting governments, each of these triumphs tells a simple truth: a determined people who have the means to maintain prolonged war against a modern army can battle it to a standstill, subverting major portions of the army or defeating it themselves or with major arms supplied by outside forces.

Don't shoot me for saying this, but you should probably post a link instead of pretending those are your words.link

"The twentieth century provides no example of a determined populace with access to small arms having been defeated by a modern army. The Russians lost in Afghanistan, the United States lost in Vietnam, and the French lost in Indo-China. In each case, it was the poorly armed populace that beat the 'modern' army. In China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, the established leaders, Chiang Kai-shek, Battista, and Somoza lost. Modern nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe only exist because guerrilla warfare can triumph over modern armies. While we may not approve of all the resulting governments, each of these triumphs tells a simple truth: a determined people who have the means to maintain prolonged war against a modern army can battle it to a standstill ..." (Guns, Crime, and Freedom, Op. cit.)

Intellectual plagiarism is the rule with these folks; not surprising, as it's so challenging to detect any independent thought or analysis from this side.

Would love to hear your analysis on the Feinstein proposal if you don't mind

 

[fatness]

I still can't get over this guy answers his door with a loaded gun behind his back...just in case. People are just busting balls about living in fear, but this guy is literally wetting his pants when a kid knocks on his door for a fundraiser.

Knock knock.

 

[timschochet]

So we're back to the argument that modest gun control ideas, such as a limitation on magazines and an end to the loopholes, should not be pursued because they might interfere with your ability to fight a guerilla war against the United States military?

Good luck selling that one.

 

[tom22406]

So we're back to the argument that modest gun control ideas, such as a limitation on magazines and an end to the loopholes, should not be pursued because they might interfere with your ability to fight a guerilla war against the United States military? Good luck selling that one.

And we are also back to Dianne Feinstein being completely clueless.Good luck telling me otherwise.

 

[fatness]

The world's largest army ... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this....

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this past season in the state of Wisconsin ...

Allow me to restate that number.

Over the last several months, Wisconsin 's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran ..

More than in France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan 's 700,000 hunters,

All of whom have now returned home.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.

More plagiarism.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

I wouldn't shoot you, we have the 1st amendment still, I didn't say they were my words, they were examples. I will try to remember to use footnotes on every post from now on.But if you break into my house at night, then I not only have the right to shoot you but the obligation. I could use either my semi-automatic shotgun or semi-automatic 9mm.

Better go out and check now. I might be lurking right outside.

No my dogs are quiet. Going out to play some basketball in a few, wanna play a game of HORSE?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

The world's largest army ... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this....

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this past season in the state of Wisconsin ...

Allow me to restate that number.

Over the last several months, Wisconsin 's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran ..

More than in France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan 's 700,000 hunters,

All of whom have now returned home.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.

More plagiarism.

I am glad you brought that back up, was going to put it to Word so I can use it again. Do you seriously think I would have access to those figures, Google is your friend, I promise when I do my English thesis I will not use Google to make a point.

 

[Apple Jack]

So we're back to the argument that modest gun control ideas, such as a limitation on magazines and an end to the loopholes, should not be pursued because they might interfere with your ability to fight a guerilla war against the United States military? Good luck selling that one.

But the Afghanis held off a small fraction of the Soviet army all by themselves. Oh wait...

 

[fatness]

Do you seriously think I would have access to those figures, Google is your friend, I promise when I do my English thesis I will not use Google to make a point.

Yeah, links are hard. You have to put down a gun to add one.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

So we're back to the argument that modest gun control ideas, such as a limitation on magazines and an end to the loopholes, should not be pursued because they might interfere with your ability to fight a guerilla war against the United States military? Good luck selling that one.

I am good with closing the loopholes, problem with the magazines. Fortunately there are millions of them out there now so you would not see the impact in your or your children's lives.Also you do know why all the major nations have Nuclear weapons right, it is not to have to use them but for mutually assured destruction, it is a deterrent to aggression. Just like weapons in the hands of civilians, it is not because we anticipate needing them to fight a guerrilla war but to make sure we don't ever have to. You seriously don't get this? Really.