stevenaa Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 (edited) 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 July 10, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 you do know rifles in the 1800's had larger capacity than that and that would remove all semi auto pistols? not happening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 (edited) 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 July 10, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 by that reasoning the 4th needs revised ...as well as some others cause you gonna need some serious search and seizure for your proposal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 The intention of the 2nd amendment is no longer a rational concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 (edited) 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 July 10, 2016 by TryTheBeal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts