Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[SuBe]

Thoughts?

 

[Motown Marvel]

It's dumb.

 

[SuBe]

It's dumb.

Eloquent.

 

[Motown Marvel]

It's not really worthy of much more than that.

 

[Victarion]

Sounds good to me boss. I'll clarify my position: better background checks are fine; banning the guns isn't.

 

[Hotwire]

It's a nice thought, but in reality it really isn't the case. Fear of death or severe injury does a lot of crazy stuff to the mind and body, and years of training can fly out the window. Just look at 9/10s of shoot outs cops are in. Secondly, a lot of drugs will keep a target moving despite being hit several times. My uncle was a cop in DC and saw this countless times. This of course is no excuse not to train, but not every situation is going to have an intruder standing still with a perfectly calm expert home owner. And not everyone can handle a shotgun. I'd much rather a person use whatever firearm they're most comfortable with than risk unintentional injury with a weapon they can't properly handle.

Again, if you're determined to have a highly lethal weapon on you, you really MUST have training.

Also, I'm glad you brought up the shooting at the Empire State Building. This is a great example of a double standard here. These were trained police officers and they only managed to shoot bystanders. Yet, so many have no problem with any Joe Schmoe having the same guns but, without the training.

 

[Hotwire]

Double post.

 

[Marvolo]

Again, if you're determined to have a highly lethal weapon on you, you really MUST have training.

Also, I'm glad you brought up the shooting at the Empire State Building. This is a great example of a double standard here. These were trained police officers and they only managed to shoot bystanders. Yet, so many have no problem with any Joe Schmoe having the same guns but, without the training.

I would just like to say that being a cop does not mean you are an expert with a gun. Their training is basic and it is up to the officer to maintain his skills and it is up to the station to make sure their officers maintain their skills. In many cases there are more civillians who can shoot better than cops, because for the civillians shooting is a passion and one they take pride in whereas with a cop it is a part of the job they hope to never be faced with.

 

[DACrowe]

Thoughts?

It's incredibly, stupid, juvenile and naive? NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT TAKING AWAY PEOPLE'S GUNS except paranoid gun nuts. We are talking about making it harder for whack jobs to purchase more powerful guns in the future.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You can not accuse people of being "paranoid", when you actually do want to take their guns away. New York, Chicago, DC. Any place where the anti-gun crowd has their way, all guns are taken away.

Either be honest, or stop calling them paranoid.

 

[Marvolo]

You can not accuse people of being "paranoid", when you actually do want to take their guns away. New York, Chicago, DC. Any place where the anti-gun crowd has their way, all guns are taken away.

Either be honest, or stop calling them paranoid.

You can still own guns in all those places. The rules for owning them are just much much stricter. If they want different rules they can move. And truthfuly when you live in Uber liberal cities one shouldn't be surprised by very liberal legislation.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You can still own guns in all those places. The rules for owning them are just much much stricter. If they want different rules they can move. And truthfuly when you live in Uber liberal cities one can't be surprised by very liberal legislation.

You try getting a handgun permit in New York (the city). Or until recently DC. Let me hear back.

 

[DACrowe]

You can not accuse people of being "paranoid", when you actually do want to take their guns away. New York, Chicago, DC. Any place where the anti-gun crowd has their way, all guns are taken away.

Either be honest, or stop calling them paranoid.

In liberal urban communities they have seriously restricted access to guns, yes. But those are local issues. Nobody in DC is talking about coming for "your guns" in North Carolina or Missouri or Mississippi or Texas or....

Where in any of Obama's executive orders or in his legislative proposals does it say, "And then we take away their guns?"

It doesn't. It is not part of the conversation unless you are paranoid to believe it is. The conversation is what steps can be taken to make it harder for mentally ill people to get guns...or at least just guns that are made to inflict the most massive amount of carnage. There is no stipulation to ban normal handguns, rifles or shotguns nor does it say that they are going to come for every gun owner who already owns an AK, AR or massive amounts of extended clips.

So, talking about this delusional and paranoid. So is that picture.

 

[Hotwire]

You try getting a handgun permit in New York (the city). Or until recently DC. Let me hear back.

You can own a handgun in DC, you just can't have a carry permit. Given how easy it is to walk up to the fences around the White House, I can understand that.

 

[Marvolo]

You try getting a handgun permit in New York (the city). Or until recently DC. Let me hear back.

Buy a shotgun for the home. If you want a handgun might I suggest moving out of the city?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Buy a shotgun for the home. If you want a handgun might I suggest moving out of the city?

Might I suggest going to the Supreme Court?

They've done that since.

 

[Marvolo]

In liberal urban communities they have banned guns, yes. But those are local issues. Nobody in DC is talking about coming for "your guns" in North Carolina or Missouri or Mississippi or Texas or....

Where in any of Obama's executive orders or in his legislative proposals does it say, "And then we take away their guns?"

It doesn't. It is not part of the conversation unless you are paranoid to believe it is. The conversation is what steps can be taken to make it harder for mentally ill people to get guns...or at least just guns that are made to inflict the most massive amount of carnage. There is no stipulation to ban normal handguns, rifles or shotguns nor does it say that they are going to come for every gun owner who already owns an AK, AR or massive amounts of extended clips.

So, talking about this delusional and paranoid. So is that picture.

I don't understand it. There is not one bad thing in Obama's 23 executive orders. It is all logical steps to help track weaons used in crime, restrict the movement of stolen weapons, and limit the ability of the mentally unstable from getting guns. Not one of his orders has anything to do with taking guns or infringing on the sane people to legally get a gun.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You can own a handgun in DC, you just can't have a carry permit. Given how easy it is to walk up to the fences around the White House, I can understand that.

You can now. Some anyway. Read the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, that was struck down in 2008.

 

[Super Kal]

I can't speak for Kal, but I think his concern is less "muh guns" and more politicians overstepping their bounds. At the end of the day, for their lavish paychecks and manchild games, they are public servants. It something they seem keen to forget and need to be reminded of.

Not really true. The vast majority of the politicians fighting for gun control want ALL guns gone. Hell, the governor of New York tried to outright ban guns from his state the other week. He had to settle for extreme restrictions. Most see stricter gun control as a stepping stone to confiscation, and that is what upsets gun owners. It's not conspiracy or paranoia. It's fact. And its good to be aware in order to fight it in the future.

On another note, a friend posted this on facebook. I think people, especially those who don't know much about whats going on, should give it a look:

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

All very good points, and both true.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Again, if you're determined to have a highly lethal weapon on you, you really MUST have training.

I didn't say one shouldn't. My point is that all the training in the world can only go so far. There are far to many variables and unforeseeable situations to just lay a blanket statement that "training = no misses".

Also, I'm glad you brought up the shooting at the Empire State Building. This is a great example of a double standard here. These were trained police officers and they only managed to shoot bystanders. Yet, so many have no problem with any Joe Schmoe having the same guns but, without the training.

A couple things: First, I don't think anyone is saying its okay to for civilians to have guns without training. Show me some one who thinks this and I'll show you a liar or a fool. Secondly, this only illustrates my point about the mistaken perception that training is 100% fool proof and that it is an excuse to justify smaller magazines for home defense. Third, the extreme majority of incidents where a civilian had to discharge their firearm in self defense did so in their own home, not in a crowded street.

 

[hippie_hunter]

It's incredibly, stupid, juvenile and naive? NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT TAKING AWAY PEOPLE'S GUNS except paranoid gun nuts. We are talking about making it harder for whack jobs to purchase more powerful guns in the future.

Even though I'm willing to bet that we're on the totally opposite side of this issue, I gotta tell ya dude, you're absolutely right with the attitude. I have so many friends acting like Obama is going to go out and take away all their guns or making comparisons to Nazi Germany and Communist China or just making the dumbest statements possible. The government is not going to come into our houses and take our guns away. And saying things like how there's going to be a civil war or it's going to be 1776 again just makes my side look like a bunch of loonies. This stupid paranoid survivalist mentality is going to cost my side this fight if they keep this stupidity up. The only way we're going to win is by using facts and rational arguments and tactical political strategy, not the stupidity that has dominated the gun-rights faction.

 

[Grievous]

You will always have someone using a gun that doesn't really know how to use it effective. I agree on the comments that if you ban guns you might as well ban everything. Even rubber bullets can cause death like that red sox fan that got hit in the head by one by the police cause she was part of a riot after the ball game.

 

[Phallic]

I didn't say one shouldn't. My point is that all the training in the world can only go so far. There are far to many variables and unforeseeable situations to just lay a blanket statement that "training = no misses".



A couple things: First, I don't think anyone is saying its okay to for civilians to have guns without training. Show me some one who thinks this and I'll show you a liar or a fool. Secondly, this only illustrates my point about the mistaken perception that training is 100% fool proof and that it is an excuse to justify smaller magazines for home defense. Third, the extreme majority of incidents where a civilian had to discharge their firearm in self defense did so in their own home, not in a crowded street.

We agree on most things, but the last part is factually incorrect. Violent crime occurs more often outside of the home than inside. This is why concealed carry laws are so important.

 

[Phallic]

In liberal urban communities they have seriously restricted access to guns, yes. But those are local issues. Nobody in DC is talking about coming for "your guns" in North Carolina or Missouri or Mississippi or Texas or....

Where in any of Obama's executive orders or in his legislative proposals does it say, "And then we take away their guns?"

It doesn't. It is not part of the conversation unless you are paranoid to believe it is. The conversation is what steps can be taken to make it harder for mentally ill people to get guns...or at least just guns that are made to inflict the most massive amount of carnage. There is no stipulation to ban normal handguns, rifles or shotguns nor does it say that they are going to come for every gun owner who already owns an AK, AR or massive amounts of extended clips.

So, talking about this delusional and paranoid. So is that picture.

While Obama may not have those intentions, there are plenty in power who have openly stated that they do. Diane Feinstein has gone on record in advocating confiscation. Gov. Cuomo of NY is another example. There are definitely those in power who would have no problem with confiscation, and would do so if they could. So while some may take it to the extreme, there is some legitimacy to some of those fears.

 

[Phallic]

If you're going to be using a gun to defend yourself, you really need to train yourself to use it properly. There's really no reason, except for panic, that you can't stop an attacker with one or two rounds. Maybe you need a larger caliber weapon, better marksmanship, even combat training. As Marvolo said, a shotgun with some nice buckshot will get the job done with minimal rounds.

Absolutely false. A shot to the central nervous system is the only sure-fire way to end a threat with one shot. There are plenty of examples of doped up criminals soaking 10+ bullets and living.

Handgun rounds are notoriously under-powered. I'm surprised a military veteran wouldn't be aware of this.