In reply to Driven5 :
I agree with you more than you think. The NRA's stonewall stance against any form of gun control will most likely be its greatest liability in the future. The over the top hysteria bothers a lot of us as much as the kind of crap from HRC and others. I'm not blind to it but minus the exaggerated threats, there are still plenty of people in power who would love to see the "little people" disarmed.
DEMS: Smoke all the weed you want, it's just recreation. But no guns, please.
REPS: Shoot all the guns you want, it's just recreation. But no weed, please.
GameboyRMH said:z31maniac said:Curious what the big gun supporters think would be "reasonable" restrictions? It's always said, "THAT IS OVERREACH WE NEED SOMETHING REASONABLE.".................yet, I never hear what is reasonable.
After 9/11, we made it more difficult to get into the cockpit of a place. After OKC, we made it more difficult to buy large amounts of fertilizer and other explosive materials.
But I can still go to the store buy an AR, get online to mod it to near full auto, and tons of ammo with basically no restriction.
If you were going to fight a foreign power you'd join the military and have your weapons provided to you. The neighborhood watch group isn't going to assemble in the streets with rifles to shoot @ foreign jet fighters.
If you think you and your middle-aged buddies are going to fight back against tyrannical gov't who happens to have the most powerful military in the world by an order of magnitude..............lay off the Call of Duty and Rambo movies.
For a real-world example of what happens when a bunch of well-armed civilians go up against a modern military, see the Syrian civil war. And Syria's military is a little pissant compared to the US military.
This is a very poor comparison.
What % of our resources do we have there? The military has more strict rules of engagement than the police officers in the US.
IIRC, we literally have maybe a few thousand soldiers in Syria and many are acting in consultant/training roles to the rebels while we use our fighters to drop bombs.
In reply to mtn :
Once we start down the path of "need vs want" there could be an argument against everything that makes life fun and interesting. I may not "need" an AR-15 for home defense, the shotgun is a better choice there, but I like it and if I never shoot anything more threatening than a piece of paper that's just fine. I also don't "need" a 1 ton dually to commute in, a corvette to drive the speed limit in, or a private plane when airline tickets are available.
A while back a group of people got together in this country and passed an amendment that alcohol was bad for the individual and for the society, so lets just prohibit people from buying it! I think we all know how poorly that turned out. Same with our war on drugs, utter failure. To change behavior, we have to get the people to change, it simply doesn't work to (attempt) take away the thing.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Your assuming the military would turn against the American people. If the hypothetical worst case came to be it would probably be because of a gross violation of the Constitution which the military is sworn to uphold.
There also seems to be a belief that were talking about a bunch of rednecks with guns. How many ex-military do we have in this country who are still well trained and would be willing to fight?
The Syrian civilians are a special case. Not a lot of experience in war fighting against a government that is willing to use whatever it takes to win.
It's all a pointless argument anyway because it's never going to happen but the assumptions made in the argument (either way) are made from a bunch of what-ifs.
KyAllroad said:In reply to Spitsix : If we are to imagine that the second amendment is written only for that period in time, then we have to hold the first amendment to the same standard. No dissemination of information faster than the single sheet printing press!
See, it's a ridiculous argument to make. Not that we don't need reform in the system but use arguments that hold up to logical scrutiny.
Here's one thing- the second amendment protects your right to bear arms. It does not define what those arms are to be, and as a matter of fact, it does point out that it's in support of a "well regulated militia".
So as a part of a well regulated militia, given that we define what our army is allowed to carry, it's a natural progression to define what the militia is allowed to carry.
There are restrictions on the first amendment, too- you are not allowed to say things that are completely wrong about someone else- you are liable for damages due to that. And that carries to the press- who are also covered under the same amendment. You also can't say things that will endanger a group of people- so you can't yell "fire" falsely in a theater. Churches are also defined in what they are- which are more restrictions to the first amendment.
Other parts of the Bill of Rights also have restrictions and limits to them, too.
But for some reason, the same kind of restrictions for the second amendment always are cut down.
Also- RE: NRA. IMHO, they have become less a voice of the gun owners and more a voice of the gun industry. They have done wonders to whip fear up in their membership to go out and buy guns.
In reply to stuart in mn :
I can tackle this.
A.) there are a lot of former service people with experience in this platform (AR/AK). They are capable platforms that they can operate efficiently and can use in home defense/pest control.
2.) have you ever shot one? Look, I was an anti-AR guy because I thought it was a fad. If I was going to have fun with friends and do mag dumps AK was the way to go (and back then 1000 rounds of Wolf was $69). Then I shot my first one. One word: Ergonomics. It's comfortable, doesn't have much kick, plenty of power to do what's needs, everything falls to hand.
I wanted a Mini-14 for a long time until I shot a friends. I'm glad I went with the AR. While the stainless/walnut mini looks gorgeous, it's not as intuitive, not as easy to shoot and doesn't "fit right". Besides, I've never understood how looks could make a weapon more deadly/dangerous.
In reply to alfadriver :
You're reading the grammar wrong.
Peanut butter sandwiches being delicious, the right to have peanut butter shall not be infringed.
This does not preclude the use of peanut butter for sandwiches alone.
Now I'm hungry. Thanks.
In reply to tuna55 :
No, we are reading it differently.
Again, the RIGHT to bear arms does not say that you get to bear any arm you want. It just says that you get to bear arms. And that right shall not be infringed.
Here's the whole text:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That can be read in many different ways. Just like all of the rest of the amendments.
We have definitions of what religion means, we have definitions of what free speech limits too, we have limits on what a reasonable search is, we have definitions of what "speedy trial" is, we have definitions of what cruel and unusual punishment is (and it has changed a lot in +200 years), heck, we have even placed definitions one what voting rights should be.
I can go on, but pretty much every single other amendment has reasonable definitions and limits on them.
Except the 2nd.
Why is that?
In reply to alfadriver :
Well, you're wrong about the idea that the second has no limitations also. A whole bunch of things are regulated very tightly on owning weapons. Are you simply ignoring them? There are regulations on automatic weapons, regulations on serialization, regulations on carrying, regulations abound.
^It's a good question. One I'd bet the VAST majority of gun owners are part of a well regulated militia, nor are the necessary for the security of a free State.
Bobzilla said:I wanted a Mini-14 for a long time until I shot a friends. I'm glad I went with the AR. While the stainless/walnut mini looks gorgeous, it's not as intuitive, not as easy to shoot and doesn't "fit right". Besides, I've never understood how looks could make a weapon more deadly/dangerous.
Plus the A-Team proved you can't hit the broad side of a barn with them.
z31maniac said:GameboyRMH said:For a real-world example of what happens when a bunch of well-armed civilians go up against a modern military, see the Syrian civil war. And Syria's military is a little pissant compared to the US military.
This is a very poor comparison.
What % of our resources do we have there? The military has more strict rules of engagement than the police officers in the US.
IIRC, we literally have maybe a few thousand soldiers in Syria and many are acting in consultant/training roles to the rebels while we use our fighters to drop bombs.
My comparison doesn't involve the US much, I'm looking at how the Syrian military is laying waste to the non-goverment-aligned civilian population.
Yes, it's an example of a military that's willing to do whatever it takes to win against civilians, but it's not exactly an example of a monolithic unified military turning against all of the civilians. Some of the military did defect to fight alongside other factions. Most wagered that the government would win and wanted to avoid treason charges. And of course some civilians back the government. That's a real-world situation right there, nothing unrealistic or inapplicable about it.
At least in the beginning, the Revolutionary War foot soldier fought with what he brought. There were no "military only" weapons. Even after the colonies were able to provide arms to the army they were still just muskets. Military arms have evolved and then filtered into the general population. From from the first metallic cartridge rifles to the lever gun to the bolt action to the semi-auto, they all have made their way into general use. What has changed that has made mass shootings the new norm?
Honestly, the biggest reason for getting behind the NRA no limitations stance is the shocking ignorance about firearms on the part of the people who are trying to limit gun ownership. What they say they want to limit is "military style weapons" like the M16. What they really want to regulate is the scary black rifles that shoot a lot of bullets really fast like in the movies.
People who don't actually understand the difference between fully automatic and semi automatic shouldn't be writing legislation about firearms any more than I should be writing fashion tips or rules of etiquette.
Writing a law to ban a certain type of gun is like trying to write a law to ban fanny packs. We all know what a fanny pack is, and we all hate them, but how do you define one so that they all go away but nothing else gets banned unnecessarily? Try it: A wide slim pack attached to a strap and designed to be worn around the waist." That sounds good, right? Does that outlaw tool belts and police handcuff pouches? Does it stop an old man from taking a woman's purse and slipping the shoulder strap around his waist? What about if he takes the fanny pack and slips it over his shoulder, or around his thigh? What about an apron with a pocket that ties at the waist? Does it matter if it is leather, or denim? Can I strap one around the tank on my motorcycle and use it as a tank bag, or would it still be illegal?
I don't know enough about what differentiates a fanny pack I clearly hate from a money belt full of coins or those god-awful single strap backpacks. I should not be writing policy to limit fanny packs because I don't have the knowledge necessary.
The gun control lobby is a lot like me trying to get rid of fanny packs, except that they don't realize how ignorant they are. Those who do know enough to help write that law see the arbitrary bs like the "featureless AR" for sale in NY or CA and they won't support that kind of legislation.
mapper said:What has changed that has made mass shootings the new norm?
In reply to Huckleberry :
I was thinking more along the lines of "Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage" but that works too.
oldopelguy said:Honestly, the biggest reason for getting behind the NRA no limitations stance is the shocking ignorance about firearms on the part of the people who are trying to limit gun ownership. What they say they want to limit is "military style weapons" like the M16. What they really want to regulate is the scary black rifles that shoot a lot of bullets really fast like in the movies.
People who don't actually understand the difference between fully automatic and semi automatic shouldn't be writing legislation about firearms any more than I should be writing fashion tips or rules of etiquette.
Writing a law to ban a certain type of gun is like trying to write a law to ban fanny packs. We all know what a fanny pack is, and we all hate them, but how do you define one so that they all go away but nothing else gets banned unnecessarily? Try it: A wide slim pack attached to a strap and designed to be worn around the waist." That sounds good, right? Does that outlaw tool belts and police handcuff pouches? Does it stop an old man from taking a woman's purse and slipping the shoulder strap around his waist? What about if he takes the fanny pack and slips it over his shoulder, or around his thigh? What about an apron with a pocket that ties at the waist? Does it matter if it is leather, or denim? Can I strap one around the tank on my motorcycle and use it as a tank bag, or would it still be illegal?
I don't know enough about what differentiates a fanny pack I clearly hate from a money belt full of coins or those god-awful single strap backpacks. I should not be writing policy to limit fanny packs because I don't have the knowledge necessary.
The gun control lobby is a lot like me trying to get rid of fanny packs, except that they don't realize how ignorant they are. Those who do know enough to help write that law see the arbitrary bs like the "featureless AR" for sale in NY or CA and they won't support that kind of legislation.
Yep, why do anything about anything.
Let's just rescind all laws and call it a day.
In reply to oldopelguy :
It's the same problem with public education. We have politicians that do not understand how education works making rules, recommendations and requiring certain policies to be implemented without the least bit of knowledge to back it up. NCLB is a perfect example of that.
Implementing the current laws and regulations, revamping our mental health services to actually be effective in helping the disturbed would actually work. But that doesn't "feel good".
bigdaddylee82 said:Bobzilla said:I wanted a Mini-14 for a long time until I shot a friends. I'm glad I went with the AR. While the stainless/walnut mini looks gorgeous, it's not as intuitive, not as easy to shoot and doesn't "fit right". Besides, I've never understood how looks could make a weapon more deadly/dangerous.
Plus the A-Team proved you can't hit the broad side of a barn with them.
Truth. If I wanted a fist fight I'd just start with that anyway.
Some interesting stats here, particularly that 4 of the 5 deadliest shootings in the US have happened in the last 10 years:
mapper said:At least in the beginning, the Revolutionary War foot soldier fought with what he brought. There were no "military only" weapons. Even after the colonies were able to provide arms to the army they were still just muskets. Military arms have evolved and then filtered into the general population. From from the first metallic cartridge rifles to the lever gun to the bolt action to the semi-auto, they all have made their way into general use. What has changed that has made mass shootings the new norm?
Could be the same change pointed out in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0">the YouTube video</a> on the previous page...mass shootings weren't really possible with the old hardware.
GameboyRMH said:Some interesting stats here, particularly that 4 of the 5 deadliest shootings in the US have happened in the last 10 years:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/mass-shootings-in-america-in-charts-and-graphs-trnd/index.html
Wait, I thought I already proved in this thread that CNN is blatantly manufacturing fear for the purposes of selling ad space and pushing the wants of its billionaire owners. And that they are not above painting two "officially" not-terrorists as terrorists because, well, they happen to fit the image/agenda.
I'm disappointed.
GameboyRMH said:Some interesting stats here, particularly that 4 of the 5 deadliest shootings in the US have happened in the last 10 years:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/mass-shootings-in-america-in-charts-and-graphs-trnd/index.html
If you read below that misleading headline, they qualify that it is in "modern US history" since 1949. If you look further back, we have a VERY bloody history as a nation. For starters:
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/2/16401510/las-vegas-shooting-deadliest
Note: If you click on the button in the reply that looks kind of like two 'links' of a chain, or push ctrl+L, you can do the courtesy of making the address you're copy-pasting a directly clickable link.
No news site is perfect. There are only two reasons to report the news: commercial interest, and personal interest. Both inherently introduce biases, and a combination of the two is possible.
If the numbers and facts in the article are real, that's a good start. If they aren't cherry-picked, even better. I'll present real and not cherry-picked numbers and facts without shame. If they're also presented without overt bias and the selection of articles in general is not biased, that's a good publication in my book.
Edit: After reading the Vox article Driven5 linked to, it's debatable whether the shootings in the CNN article are the worst mass shootings. They're the worst with a single shooter, but there have been worse in the past with multiple shooters.
You'll need to log in to post.
