From Backwoods Home Magazine: 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Rights...long read, but worth it

[SkinsWarrior81]

Sure it does, they've just redefined arms to mean small arms...I bet if I go to buy a nuclear bomb my right to bear that particular arm will be seriously infringed. BTW, everyone wave to the poor sap at Ft. Meade who has to read this thread because my post just got flagged.

:ciao:

If you can get your hands on a suit case nuke, I think that the constitution is one of the last things on your mind.

[AsburySkinsFan]

If you can get your hands on a suit case nuke, I think that the constitution is one of the last things on your mind.

I just want it in case I need to defend myself from tyranny, heck I'll self limit and just buy a small yield tactical nuke.

[SkinsWarrior81]

I just want it in case I need to defend myself from tyranny, heck I'll self limit and just buy a small yield tactical nuke.

If you can build one, you can have one. Not sure if you have the facilities for that, though.

[Predicto]

But just like the intent of motor vehicle rules is to protect citizens, does it not become laden down with fees, taxes and unnecessary red tape. Then, the enforcement is a whole other story. For example, you must show proof of insurance, AWESOME, totally support it, 100%!!!! However, I took my proof of insurance into the DMV and the lady told me it wasn't written properly. When I asked to see someone else I was shut down and told I needed to have USAA change it. I called USAA and told them the situation and they had NEVER heard of such a thing and emailed me proof of what the regulation in question was ACTUALLY referencing and suddenly it was ok. Even though the new agent agreed the previous agent was in fact mistaken. You see my point? The way our country words and approves things leaves much of it up to interpretation. This is unacceptable and one of the main reasons I'm skeptical of banning anything until thorough and extensive research and litigation is conducted.

You realize, of course, that the NRA has blocked any "thorough and extensive research" into this subject for decades, don't you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[THEREALTOR1]

Although it appears no thread can be immune of "snappy one liners" (I guess thats the internet for you), this is by far one of the most intelligent conversations i've seen on any website since this entire debate began.

BTW, just to hopefully put an end to the car/gun comparison once and for all, you don't need a license (or insurance), or to be 16 years old, to drive a car, only when you pull that vehicle out onto a state/federally constructed roadway, do those laws apply. That's the governement's road, you're accessing it, you play by their rules (and whatever agreed upon rules they have in place with the insurance companies), as that's what you agreed to when you applied for your drivers license and signed your insurance polcy with statefarm. If you want to let your 12 year old son/daughter drive a monster truck (or just for ASF, a tank), around your privately owned 50,000 acre ranch, who's going to arrest you?

[AsburySkinsFan]

If you can build one, you can have one. Not sure if you have the facilities for that, though.

Really? Because I think we're kinda in the middle a pretty large disagreement with Iran on that very issue, also I believe that the US has signed onto a non-proliferation treaty where they work to prevent others from acquiring nuclear weapons. I'm pretty sure my right to bear that particular arm would be quickly infinged.

....and rightfully so, which brings me back to the point of this whole devil's advocate routine, we already accept infingement of the right to bear arms, WMD, nuclear etc, what we are in disagreement over is where we are going to limit how much we infringe on that right.

[DjTj]

Edit: I do think that limiting mag sizes is a pretty ridiculous and token idea. There really is nothing that is going to come from that. Mag changes happen in seconds. At Columbine, they just brought a whole bunch of mags with them and swapped them out.

Wouldn't it be easier for a bystander to stop or slow down a shooter that needs to reload more often?

In the Oregon mall shooting, the shooter's AR-15 jammed, and a bystander with a gun confronted him during that time.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Even if reloading takes a few seconds, wouldn't that few seconds be very valuable for someone (a bystander, security guard, or policeman) trying to intervene?

[MattFancy]

Wouldn't it be easier for a bystander to stop or slow down a shooter that needs to reload more often?

In the Oregon mall shooting, the shooter's AR-15 jammed, and a bystander with a gun confronted him during that time.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Even if reloading takes a few seconds, wouldn't that few seconds be very valuable for someone (a bystander, security guard, or policeman) trying to intervene?

Damn you and your reasoning!

[DjTj]

But just like the intent of motor vehicle rules is to protect citizens, does it not become laden down with fees, taxes and unnecessary red tape. Then, the enforcement is a whole other story. For example, you must show proof of insurance, AWESOME, totally support it, 100%!!!! However, I took my proof of insurance into the DMV and the lady told me it wasn't written properly. When I asked to see someone else I was shut down and told I needed to have USAA change it. I called USAA and told them the situation and they had NEVER heard of such a thing and emailed me proof of what the regulation in question was ACTUALLY referencing and suddenly it was ok. Even though the new agent agreed the previous agent was in fact mistaken. You see my point? The way our country words and approves things leaves much of it up to interpretation. This is unacceptable and one of the main reasons I'm skeptical of banning anything until thorough and extensive research and litigation is conducted.

You're right that any government administration is prone to inefficiencies. Ultimately, the government is run by people, and people are fallible. But the fallibility of man is also the same reason we need laws, and we need a government to enforce them. It is always a balance between how much you trust your fellow citizens and how much you trust your government.

On balance, I think that mandating car insurance provides benefits for society overall that are worth the hassle of occasionally dealing with incompetent DMV workers.

I think that regulating magazine sizes and requiring universal background checks provides benefits for society overall that are worth the hassle of buying new magazines and occasionally dealing with faulty government databases.

I've never been a supporter of knee jerk responses, ever.

Is it really a knee-jerk response if we're just trying to re-enact a law that was first passed in 1994? Or was letting the Assault Weapons Ban expire a knee-jerk response to the NRA's successful lobbying efforts in the 2000-04 elections?

[Bang]

I can't say I particularly disagree with any of that.

Edit: I do think that limiting mag sizes is a pretty ridiculous and token idea. There really is nothing that is going to come from that. Mag changes happen in seconds. At Columbine, they just brought a whole bunch of mags with them and swapped them out.

limiting magazine sizes probablyis a token idea, and conversely, i think that they can be used as bait if kept legal.

Take the case of the Aurora shooter, if anyone had the power to review his applications would clearly see many red flags of a guy getting ready to go to war. buying drum magazines, body armor. gun after gun.. these are ways we can look into preventing such things reasonably.

~Bang

[ZoEd]

Take that line of thinking and apply it to alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, and even cocaine. Yet, we restrict them by age or entirely despite the fact that the vast number of teens who drink at parties aren't planning to drive drunk and kill someone. Laws like drinking laws or gun laws are written to protect us against the worst situation. Likewise, the vast majority of adults who drink beer do not drive drunk. Should we then abolish drunk driving laws or age limits because it stigmitizes alcohol.

Most gun owners are responsible (even the ones who allow their guns to be stolen by the irresponsible) that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to provide reasonable precautions against a very real danger and only a fool would argue that guns could not present very real danger. And that, you and most conservatives are not.

I concur with a lot of what you're saying but I have to ask you in regards to some of the restricted, regulated or banned things you mentioned; is it the governments place to regulate such things? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the people, through the democratic process of the state they live in, to make such decisions? Sorry, but I'm not down with this concept of the govt needing to save us from ourselves!

How idiotic is it than a young man or woman can die for our country but not drink a beer if they're under 21? Or for a person, if they so choose, grow marijuana for their personal use, in the privacy of their own home? Our govt has made restrictions on such things mainly with cherry picked, skewed or downright fabricated facts to push and agenda that should be left to the states to decide. No? With the govt's track record of saving us from ourselves, often being dressed in sheeps clothing as what's best for the people but typically ends up being what's best for the politicians career or the special interest groups lining their pockets.

This type of behavior crosses party lines so for all of those who want to clamor about "that's what the NRA is doing", well no ****. Just like the pharmaceutical companies, oil, auto, banks and every other greedy, power obsessed company in America. If the NRA is sabatoging policy and enforcement, they're not the only ones! Then again, that doesn't exist in Predictotropolis!

[sacase]

So I am working the SHOT Show (Shooting Hunting and Outdoor Tradeshow) this week. I live in Cali where everything is banned. So when I had some downtime I would stop by booths to see what I wanted to eventually buy. So I was at the Barrett Booth talking with one of the sales reps asking about the Barrett Model 99 sniper rifle I would love to get. So I told him I would love one, but I live in Cali. He said oh I got something for you. You can get it chambered in the .416 caliber and its then Cali legal. Funny thing is .416 is more powerful and has greater ranger than the .50cal. So I will be buying one before it is made illegal. Point being is that gun manufactures will do whatever they need to do to get around the laws.

I was at the Springfield booth and I wanted to purchase the XDS .45. I think it had about 8 round magazine, However, it is illegal in Cali. Why? I own a Tauruss 24/7 OSS Tactical .45. Before I moved to Cali it was on the approved handgun list. However, when I moved there it was not. I was not able to ship it I had to carry it into cali. I could own it, But I could not have it transferred. Point I am making is that many of these gun laws have no rhyme or reason.

If you want to have people take a one time certification test on gun safety. I am all behind that. You get a card and you can purchase weapons as you see fit. If you want 5 year updates, I can agree with that as well. Magazine limits I am not fan of. Banning weapons based on LOOKS vs capabilities is just plain dumb., but that is what these "assault weapons" bans essentially are.

Fact of the matter is I am not infringing on anyone's rights by owning a firearm. I only infringe on their rights if I commit a crime with it. However, by preventing me from owning one you are infringing on my rights.

The problem with these laws is that they do nothing to make people safer, criminals do not care if they are breaking the law and will continue to do so. Look at the paper who published the list of gun owners, two fo their homes have been broken into and the guns were targeted. That was irresponsible thing to do by the anti-gun groups.

Personally I think that the common citizen should be able to own any weapon that is the equivlent or less than the standard weapon carried by a member of the US military.

[Bang]

Point being is that gun manufactures will do whatever they need to do to get around the laws. .

I think if many on the pro gun side would recognize this we'd go a long way towards finding a solution.

there are two counter arguments here that make perfect sense.

first being that the incredible small minority of gun users who commit crimes with them should not ruin it for everyone.

and the second being that the small minority IS ruining it for everybody.

Both are legitimate points.

And there's a third argument that also plays into this, and that is criminals can always get guns.

And we know where they get a large portion of them. You proved it to yourself.

Now, the guy you ran across may not be so unscrupulous as to sell you a bag full of saturday night specials while ignoring all your jailhouse gang tattoos.. but those dealers DO exist, and they ARE the minority that is really ruining it for everyone.

if we could police it and remove that particular link in the crooks-get-guns chain, then we make it all much more difficult, and the only people we'd ruin it for are those criminals and unscrupulous dealers who enable them and put us all at risk.

~Bang

[Predicto]

I concur with a lot of what you're saying but I have to ask you in regards to some of the restricted, regulated or banned things you mentioned; is it the governments place to regulate such things? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the people, through the democratic process of the state they live in, to make such decisions? Sorry, but I'm not down with this concept of the govt needing to save us from ourselves!

I know it pisses you off when I say anything now, but I have to ask you what you mean here. How is the "government" different from "the democratic process?"

[Destino]

Edit: I do think that limiting mag sizes is a pretty ridiculous and token idea. There really is nothing that is going to come from that. Mag changes happen in seconds. At Columbine, they just brought a whole bunch of mags with them and swapped them out.

You speak of seconds as if they don't matter when everyone knows that in any fast moving situation seconds often make all the difference. Seconds spent not firing are significant and provide a opportunity for someone to attack the shooter or for the shooter simply to make a mistake in a stressful situation and further prolong the delay in the gun fire. Columbine feature multiple shooters and they could cover eachother that were each heavily armed. They could have had a pair of grandpa's shotguns and carried out their attack. The goal here is to make things more difficult not to make America mass murder proof. There is no law or set of laws that could accomplish that. The problem is that right now it's too damn easy because an easily acquired weapon and a 100 round clip is essentially a plug and play mass murder combo package. You don't need much training at all to kill a lot of people with that set up.

[Redskins Diehard]

Wouldn't it be easier for a bystander to stop or slow down a shooter that needs to reload more often?

In the Oregon mall shooting, the shooter's AR-15 jammed, and a bystander with a gun confronted him during that time.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Even if reloading takes a few seconds, wouldn't that few seconds be very valuable for someone (a bystander, security guard, or policeman) trying to intervene?

It doesn't take a "few seconds" to change a magazine. To clear a jam? Yeah. to change a magazine? No. I don't know if that changes MF's opinion of the "reasoning".

[MattFancy]

It doesn't take a "few seconds" to change a magazine. To clear a jam? Yeah. to change a magazine? No. I don't know if that changes MF's opinion of the "reasoning".

So how long does it take to reload then? Sometimes seconds are all you need in situations like this.

[DjTj]

It doesn't take a "few seconds" to change a magazine. To clear a jam? Yeah. to change a magazine? No. I don't know if that changes MF's opinion of the "reasoning".

How many seconds are you claiming it will take? I honestly have never done more than shoot through a magazine at a gun range, so I have never tried to change out a clip as fast as possible. But to detach a magazine, grab another magazine, insert it, and reacquire the target and start shooting again, you are saying that can typically be done in 1 second? SW81 said it would take "seconds." Do you disagree with that?

[Popeman38]

Wouldn't it be easier for a bystander to stop or slow down a shooter that needs to reload more often?

In the Oregon mall shooting, the shooter's AR-15 jammed, and a bystander with a gun confronted him during that time.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Even if reloading takes a few seconds, wouldn't that few seconds be very valuable for someone (a bystander, security guard, or policeman) trying to intervene?

Wait, what? I thought an armed citizen would never be able to stop a mass shooting, even if the shooter were to change magazines?!?

[Destino]

It doesn't take a "few seconds" to change a magazine. To clear a jam? Yeah. to change a magazine? No. I don't know if that changes MF's opinion of the "reasoning".

Are we talking average person or the guy that its around practicing it all day and always keep it in exactly the same place? It can take anywhere from a second to an embarrassingly long time. I doubt that most mass murderers are well oiled machines that practice countless hours in order to get changing the mag programmed into muscle memory. Thus the massive capacity mag.

[Stadium-Armory]

Wouldn't it be easier for a bystander to stop or slow down a shooter that needs to reload more often?

My father wrote this piece which was published in the post today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eliminate-detachable-magazines/2013/01/17/fec4bc62-601a-11e2-9dc9-bca76dd777b8_story.html

Eliminate detachable magazines

President Obama proposed to ban military-style assault weapons and limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds [“Gun agenda faces an uphill campaign,” front page, Jan. 17]. This proposal echoes similar ones from many gun-control advocates. For example, in a Jan. 16 op-ed, “Clip the capacity to kill,” Jason Ross stated that if the AR-15’s magazine capacity were limited to five rounds, it would no longer be an assault weapon.

Perhaps so, by prevalent definitions, but it is important to remember that as long as a gun’s magazine is detachable at the push of a button, as is the case with an AR-15, a shooter on a rampage with such a gun could carry extra, pre-loaded magazines, quickly exchange an emptied one for a full one, and continue shooting with only a few interruptions. With a 10-round magazine, the limit proposed by the president, there would be very few interruptions.

A much more effective approach would be to combine a limit on magazine capacity — say, to five rounds — with the requirement that the magazine must be fixed, not detachable, and with no insertable clips. Such a magazine can be reloaded only by a manual, time-consuming, one-shell-at-a-time process. A deranged person would have a much harder time killing many people with such a gun than with one with a detachable magazine.

Its strange for me to read the comments section and see people who don't know my dad calling him names. An odd sensation..

[DjTj]

Wait, what? I thought an armed citizen would never be able to stop a mass shooting, even if the shooter were to change magazines?!?

That has never been my stance. Responsible citizens should be able to own reasonable guns for self-defense or recreation. A 30-round magazine is something that is much more useful for mass killing than it is for hunting, repelling a home invasion, or intervening to stop a crime. In Oregon, a responsible gunowner with a concealed carry license may have stopped a crime by pointing his pistol at a shooter. I have yet to hear of a case where a high-capacity magazine was necessary for self-defense.

[Popeman38]

How many seconds are you claiming it will take? I honestly have never done more than shoot through a magazine at a gun range, so I have never tried to change out a clip as fast as possible. But to detach a magazine, grab another magazine, insert it, and reacquire the target and start shooting again, you are saying that can typically be done in 1 second? SW81 said it would take "seconds." Do you disagree with that?

Changing a mag is literally a split second thing. For a handgun, you drop the old mag at the push of a button, slapping a new mag in, and releasing the upper receiver. Trained, you can do this in less than a second. A novice could very easily take a couple seconds.

[Bang]

Hell, McGyver didn't even NEED a magazine. he could make a clip out of a matchbook and and old pencil.

~Bang

[ZoEd]

That has never been my stance. Responsible citizens should be able to own reasonable guns for self-defense or recreation. A 30-round magazine is something that is much more useful for mass killing than it is for hunting, repelling a home invasion, or intervening to stop a crime. In Oregon, a responsible gunowner with a concealed carry license may have stopped a crime by pointing his pistol at a shooter. I have yet to hear of a case where a high-capacity magazine was necessary for self-defense.

Neither are 800 HP cars, 200mph motorcycles or any other excesses in life but responsible people can own them, even though the Prius driving folks of the world probably think that no reasonable person needs to have that much power or the ability to go that fast! It's ludicrus!

Just because you're not familiar with the weapons or what they're used for doesn't mean there aren't responsible people out there who use them in a safe manner. And no one has proven to me or shown me evidence these demonized weapons, with all of their firey fangs, scales and big high capacity mouthes full of shiny bullets enabled these mass shootings to take place! Do any of you, raise your hand, please tell me how long it takes to drop a magazine, reload a full one and continue shooting? Anyone. Bueller?