Dont Taze Me Bro

The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

Recommended Posts

How about a background check and no ARs?

I'm fine with that.   I think restricting hunting rifles to internal magazines of 3-5 bullets is fine.    Background checks should be required.  30 day waiting period for cool down and time to do background checks is fine.  None of that infringes on my ownership rights.   We place limits on our constitutional rights all the time.    There's room for compromise IMO.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with that. I think restricting hunting rifles to internal magazines of 3-5 bullets is fine. Background checks should be required. 30 day waiting period for cool down and time to do background checks is fine. None of that infringes on my ownership rights. We place limits on our constitutional rights all the time. There's room for compromise IMO.

Well my hate for the NRA is well documented here. But I would start donating to them if that's what it took to stop this. Way to far IMO.

Edited by TheGreatBuzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my hate for the NRA is well documented here. But I would start donating to them if that's what it took to stop this. Way to far IMO.

What do you disagree with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you disagree with?

It sounded like you would essentially be limiting long guns to hunting use only. I believe in the right to have a 30 round mag for example. Though I would be fine with better background checks and waiting periods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounded like you would essentially be limiting long guns to hunting use only. I believe in the right to have a 30 round mag for example. Though I would be fine with better background checks and waiting periods.

What practical and/or constitutional argument would lead you to classify availability of 30 round magazines as a right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What practical and/or constitutional argument would lead you to classify availability of 30 round magazines as a right?

What argument do you have they aren't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What argument do you have they aren't?

Practical: they serve no functional purpose other than making killing people more efficient

Constitutional: all rights have limits, it's just a matter of where you draw the line. Seems to me that drawing the line somewhere before letting anybody interested buy a mass killing device is pretty reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you do know rifles in the 1800's had larger capacity than that and that would remove all semi auto pistols?

 

not happening

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Practical: they serve no functional purpose other than making killing people more efficient

Constitutional: all rights have limits, it's just a matter of where you draw the line. Seems to me that drawing the line somewhere before letting anybody interested buy a mass killing device is pretty reasonable.

Practical: well depending on how you define the purpose of the 2nd, that may be needed. And I like not having to reload every 5 seconds at the range.

Constitutional: lines have already been drawn other wise I would have grenades and such. You are wanting to move the line. You need a better argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Practical: well depending on how you define the purpose of the 2nd, that may be needed. And I like not having to reload every 5 seconds at the range.

Constitutional: lines have already been drawn other wise I would have grenades and such. You are wanting to move the line. You need a better argument.

You being inconvenienced is irrelevant and frankly supports the argument to ban the mags if it's such an inconvenience during a mass shooting.

Re: lines already being drawn, uh yeah, no **** we're trying to re-draw them. That's what this entire thread is about. And no, I don't need a better argument than "eliminating high capacity magazines would help mitigate some of the damage during mass shootings, and banning them is no more than a minor inconvenience to lawful gun owners." It's a no brainer to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You being inconvenienced is irrelevant and frankly supports the argument to ban the mags if it's such an inconvenience during a mass shooting.

Re: lines already being drawn, uh yeah, no **** we're trying to re-draw them. That's what this entire thread is about. And no, I don't need a better argument than "eliminating high capacity magazines would help mitigate some of the damage during mass shootings, and banning them is no more than a minor inconvenience to lawful gun owners." It's a no brainer to me.

I've tried to remain polite. Please do the same. I'm probably one of the nicest gun rights people there is to have a discussion with and I'd like to keep it that way.

Care to address my point about what you think the purpose of the 2nd is?

Edited by TheGreatBuzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried to remain polite. Please do the same. I'm probably one of the nicest gun rights people there is to have a discussion with and I'd like to keep it that way.

Care to address my point about what you think the purpose of the 2nd is?

Wasn't intending to be rude, though maybe a little bit of a smart ass. Can't help myself.

My take on the 2nd amendment is that our Founders wanted to ensure that the citizens of this country remained armed to prevent a tyrannical government from oppressing them. That worked fine with 1700s era muskets. That's not feasible in the 21st century, because in order to give the people a fighting chance against the government they'd need access to things like tanks and fighter jets.

The founders never had to consider that the 2nd amendment would one day allow lone crazy people to kill dozens of innocent people. They never had to balance their desire to ward off tyranny via a well armed populace with the reality that people are regularly getting slaughtered by military grade weaponry. That task is left to those of us now living in that reality today.

The 2nd amendment, as originally intended, is dead. The risks posed of future tyranny as a result of removing military weapons from civilian hands are FAR outweighed from the societal benefits of doing so. And it's not really close IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name="skinsfan_1215" post="10638027"

My take on the 2nd amendment is that our Founders wanted to ensure that the citizens of this country remained armed to prevent a tyrannical government from oppressing them. That worked fine with 1700s era muskets. That's not feasible in the 21st century, because in order to give the people a fighting chance against the government they'd need access to things like tanks and fighter jets.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't setting you up to make this response. And it's only e that has always confused me. You are saying no one can compete with the US military without tanks and misses? So why do we have so much trouble beating every enemy in the last 50 years? Gorilla warfare can't be beat with tanks and aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

by that reasoning the 4th needs revised ...as well as some others

 

cause you gonna need some serious search and seizure for your proposal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, your opinion is that both arguments are equally valid?

(And your attempt to paint both arguments as "one side's" arguments isn't a dishonest attempt to deflect things away from the argument that's actually being discussed?)

No, my opinion was you picked a hilariously bad example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fergasun you do realize that you are giving "ammo" to the argument that "liberals want to come take our guns" right? I usually laugh at people making those claims but you aren't helping.

"No one wants to take your guns away"

Lol, yes they do. And because of that, we can't get any movement on items the rest of us deem perfectly reasonable. Because the gun nuts' slippery slope argument is much more than just a fallacy. There are plenty of people that actually want to take people's guns away.

(And they're not entirely wrong for wanting to do so.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't setting you up to make this response. And it's only e that has always confused me. You are saying no one can compete with the US military without tanks and misses? So why do we have so much trouble beating every enemy in the last 50 years? Gorilla warfare can't be beat with tanks and aircraft.

If your view is that you need 30 round magazines because you think you might have to fight a guerilla war against the US military someday, and you think the likelihood of this is enough to justify the quantifiable risks of allowing these military grade weapons to remain easily accessible, then we'll just fundamentally disagree. And I'll also note that you're a little paranoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't intending to be rude, though maybe a little bit of a smart ass. Can't help myself.

That worked fine with 1700s era muskets. That's not feasible in the 21st century, because in order to give the people a fighting chance against the government they'd need access to things like tanks and fighter jets.

 

You need to recheck your very recent history to know this is absolutely not true.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Practical: they serve no functional purpose other than making killing people more efficient

Constitutional: all rights have limits, it's just a matter of where you draw the line. Seems to me that drawing the line somewhere before letting anybody interested buy a mass killing device is pretty reasonable.

Preface:

I'm cool with revolvers and bolt/pump action only. That's my personal opinion, not anything based on the constitution or anything else.

Your idea is flawed because the second amendment isn't about hunting. It isn't even in the same ball park as hunting. It's about protecting, well, whatever you think the constitution is about protecting, and unfortunately that means the ability to kill people not animals. Unless the deer completed their rise and actually start taking over northern Virginia soon.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preface:

I'm cool with revolvers and bolt/pump action only. That's my personal opinion, not anything based on the constitution or anything else.

Your idea is flawed because the second amendment isn't about hunting. It isn't even in the same ball park as hunting. It's about protecting, well, whatever you think the constitution is about protecting, and unfortunately that means the ability to kill people not animals. Unless the deer completed their rise and actually start taking over northern Virginia soon.

Read a few posts further down. I completely acknowledge the intention of the 2nd amendment. That intention, combined with modern weapons, isn't close to being practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your view is that you need 30 round magazines because you think you might have to fight a guerilla war against the US military someday, and you think the likelihood of this is enough to justify the quantifiable risks of allowing these military grade weapons to remain easily accessible, then we'll just fundamentally disagree. And I'll also note that you're a little paranoid.

Oh I realized we fundamentally disagreed a while ago. And I'm not paranoid, but plenty of voters are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fergasun you do realize that you are giving "ammo" to the argument that "liberals want to come take our guns" right? I usually laugh at people making those claims but you aren't helping.

I've staked my data driven rationale and explained why I think this Makes America Safer. I understand why people feel they shouldn't be punished for.001% of the population that uses weapons an efficient killing machine.

I don't understand the unique areas people reference as to why USA is different than say - Germany. Germany and other countries made changes in their laws after similar horrors of Sandy Hook. I don't. get why we have to act so stubborn - and currently proposed legislation is a very little step in the direction I advocate... and it can't get passed.

Public brandishing outside of hunting/recreational and outside of limited law enforcement needs to go... aka, if someone (non LEO) has a gun in public and is not hunting they already should be assumed to have ill intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The intention of the 2nd amendment is no longer a rational concern.

At the risk of sounding melodramatic...

Rational concern died on 9/11. We became radicalized on that day.

Edited by TryTheBeal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read a few posts further down. I completely acknowledge the intention of the 2nd amendment. That intention, combined with modern weapons, isn't close to being practical.

But what you think is practical is irrelevant.

The intention of the 2nd amendment is no longer a rational concern.

Lol. Funny how that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.