The Wussification of America

[Jenksismyhero]

Back in the day I was kind of a John Bender.

 

 

 

 

I disagree with the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And I believe that one day my interpretation will be correct.

 

We arent arguing in front of the Supreme Court, this is just merely opinion.

 

Well good for you, but what you think doesn't really mean much when we're talking gun control legislation that people want to enact today, under current law.

[Texsox]

First off, my scenario would be that when I go to the range I'd rather not change clips multiple times. So there's your scenario.

 

Second, this is not OUR burden here, it's yours. Like it or not, guns are a constitutionally protected right, so you need to provide a pretty good reason, narrowly tailored, to curb that right. Your fear of being a victim of cross-fire in a fantasy world where every gun owner is a Rambo wannabe doesn't work.

"Well regulated militia" isn't enough?

[StrangeSox]

Creating legislation that would negatively impact tens of millions of people for the sake of literally a single digit number of people is pretty much the definition of failing the strict scrutiny test.

do tens of millions of people own firearms with magazines larger than 10 rounds?

 

e.g. serious question. my fil, bil and grandfather all own a shotgun, but they wouldn't be impacted by magazine restrictions. isn't glock sort of the oddball with the 17 round magazine?

Edited February 4, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Your sole example of a negative impact upon you was that it's more fun at the shooting range to have a large magazine.

 

You're willing to trade the life of a single 9 year old girl for that?

 

Yep! Freedom's cost a helluva lot more than one 9 year old girl.

[Jenksismyhero]

do tens of millions of people own firearms with magazines larger than 10 rounds?

 

True. I guess i'm reading into the argument your guys' want of a handgun ban, or in Balta's case, an entire gun ban.

[The Sir]

Because its not about you. The United States cant make laws for individuals.

 

I can make the same argument that my smoking weed, getting high on mushrooms, tripping on lsd, wont hurt you and therefore I should be allowed to do it.

 

The problem is, and I would hope you can also see this, not everyone is me, not everyone is you. Not everyone can handle their drugs and not hurt someone else. Not everyone can handle their guns and not hurt someone else.

 

So as a society we have to make a decision. Do we the people, the ones who arent going to screw s*** up, agree that we will make rules that slightly curtail our freedoms, to try and prevent other people from being injured?

 

You were in the military. You were trained to operate weapons. My concerns are not about you on the street with a weapon. My concern is about the 19 year old, who buys a gun to be cool, never learns how to use it and does something stupid like target practice in his backyard.

 

Peoples concerns about drugs are for the kids who take them and drive a car, or do something stupid.

 

Sometimes we all get screwed because there are irresponsible people. I can live in both societies. Im fine with a govt that has no rules, but when I say that, I truly mean, no rules on guns, no rules on drugs. I can live in a society with rules.

 

Most people cant really live in a no rule society. It just isnt what they imagine.

 

I disagree with this, but it's actually a well thought out post. So congrats.

 

People are stupid. They are. I watched a video a while back of a guy whose shotgun jammed. So he looked down the barrel. The gun went off and blew his hat off. Luckily, it didn't kill him.

 

But I don't think that because he's an irresponsible clown, my right to own a gun should be infringed nor should yours.

 

So to put it as simply as possible, stupid people shouldn't be the reason for laws on normal people.

[StrangeSox]

I'm actually more in favor a handgun ban than an AWB

 

edit: and I still think that a registry and other tracking and enforcement provisions would be more effective than any ban that would inevitably grandfather in a ton of weapons.

Edited February 4, 2013 by StrangeSox

[EvilMonkey]

I'm glad you recognize there is a problem.

 

Then let's look at supply and demand.

 

When there is more or something than there is demand then prices are low. When there is fewer of them and still there is demand then prices go up. When prices increase then fewer and fewer people (criminals included) can obtain them. Same reason not much street crime happens with high end Glocks, too expensive for petty criminals.

So are you advocating to make owning a gun more expensive to operate and own? If so, why are you so eager to price a right away from poor people? Do they not have the same rights as others? You would be willing to force people to spend hundreds or thousands to enjoy their RIGHT to bear arms, but yet have a cow when someone has to cough up $5 for a state ID to vote? I submit that your added expenses on gun ownership are just like a pol ltax, meant to keep poor people from defending themselves. You sir, are racist! (just kidding on that one)

[Soxbadger]

Well good for you, but what you think doesn't really mean much when we're talking gun control legislation that people want to enact today, under current law.

 

In any discussion everything should be on the table. Laws change, rules change. At one point the law of the US allowed slavery. That didnt mean that people couldnt talk about ending slavery or changing the law.

[StrangeSox]

So are you advocating to make owning a gun more expensive to operate and own? If so, why are you so eager to price a right away from poor people? Do they not have the same rights as others? You would be willing to force people to spend hundreds or thousands to enjoy their RIGHT to bear arms, but yet have a cow when someone has to cough up $5 for a state ID to vote? I submit that your added expenses on gun ownership are just like a pol ltax, meant to keep poor people from defending themselves. You sir, are racist! (just kidding on that one)

don't need to be kidding about that, there's a lot of racial oppression in the history of gun control laws. I think there's a legitimate point there about making it a right that's only accessible to the (relatively) well-off.

 

otoh we essentially do that with automatic weapons and I think that's an example of a good, effective gun control scheme.

[The Sir]

do tens of millions of people own firearms with magazines larger than 10 rounds?

 

e.g. serious question. my fil, bil and grandfather all own a shotgun, but they wouldn't be impacted by magazine restrictions. isn't glock sort of the oddball with the 17 round magazine?

 

Yes. I honestly believe they would. There are 114 million handguns in the US. I have three handguns, only 1 of which is less than 10 rounds. And really, unless it's a .45, most handgun magazines carry ten rounds.

 

So yeah, if you're honestly curious, I do think that would affect millions of people. Probably tens of millions.

[The Sir]

don't need to be kidding about that, there's a lot of racial oppression in the history of gun control laws. I think there's a legitimate point there about making it a right that's only accessible to the (relatively) well-off.

 

otoh we essentially do that with automatic weapons and I think that's an example of a good, effective gun control scheme.

 

Well, I guess I can appreciate you understanding that.

[StrangeSox]

right, I thought most proposals have a 10-round max, so your typical handgun magazine would be ok.

[EvilMonkey]

don't need to be kidding about that, there's a lot of racial oppression in the history of gun control laws. I think there's a legitimate point there about making it a right that's only accessible to the (relatively) well-off.

 

otoh we essentially do that with automatic weapons and I think that's an example of a good, effective gun control scheme.

I meant about TEX being racist. I am aware of some of the history of gun control laws.

[The Sir]

right, I thought most proposals have a 10-round max, so your typical handgun magazine would be ok.

 

You misunderstood.

 

Most handgun magazines have greater than ten rounds. Not equal to ten, greater than ten.

 

Edit: I worded it poorly. Regardless, I did not mean to the average handgun mag carries exactly ten rounds. I meant ten round and more.

Edited February 4, 2013 by God Loves The Infantry

[EvilMonkey]

right, I thought most proposals have a 10-round max, so your typical handgun magazine would be ok.

Mine Glock came with a 17 round clip standard. My S & W has a 15 round standard. Most newer guns have more than 10 rounds standard.

[StrangeSox]

I knew that the glocks had larger magazines, GLtI said "And really, unless it's a .45, most handgun magazines carry ten rounds" so that's what I was going off of. apparently he meant "at least ten rounds" or "more than ten rounds"

[Texsox]

So are you advocating to make owning a gun more expensive to operate and own? If so, why are you so eager to price a right away from poor people? Do they not have the same rights as others? You would be willing to force people to spend hundreds or thousands to enjoy their RIGHT to bear arms, but yet have a cow when someone has to cough up $5 for a state ID to vote? I submit that your added expenses on gun ownership are just like a pol ltax, meant to keep poor people from defending themselves. You sir, are racist! (just kidding on that one)

 

No, I am pointing out how restricting sales leads to less weapons in the hands of criminals and likewise, unlimited sales leads to more guns in the hands of criminals. If we're going to deal in the absurdity of don't write laws that criminals will not follow, only write laws that criminals will follow then I believe this shows how they will help solve the problem you mentioned.

[EvilMonkey]

No, I am pointing out how restricting sales leads to less weapons in the hands of criminals and likewise, unlimited sales leads to more guns in the hands of criminals. If we're going to deal in the absurdity of don't write laws that criminals will not follow, only write laws that criminals will follow then I believe this shows how they will help solve the problem you mentioned.

So to steal a point from an earlier post, how much do you 'restrict' the sales? Millions of people purchase and own guns with no problems, how much to you screw them to keep the guns away from a few bad apples? You already have laws keeping felons and crazy people from owning them. What MORE laws do you want in their place? You already have laws making it a crime to shoot people, use guns in commission of a crime and so on, what MORE laws do you want? Somewhere there is a point where restricting the supply of guns on the hope of keeping them away from a handful of bad people that will get them infringes on the rights of others to have them as well. I still call your attempts at restrictions to be just like a poll tax.

 

And nobody anywhere ever said we should allow 'unlimited sales'. You just threw that in there to be absurd and over the top like usual.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Alpha Dog

[Soxbadger]

But I don't think that because he's an irresponsible clown, my right to own a gun should be infringed nor should yours.

 

So to put it as simply as possible, stupid people shouldn't be the reason for laws on normal people.

 

I believe that the law should punish people for bad actions, not punish people just because they may do something bad.

 

The problem is that I am in the extreme minority.

 

Ill give examples.

 

For drugs. I would say drugs should be legal. If you want to kill yourself with drugs, thats your call. But if you take drugs and it somehow results in the injury of someone else (drunk driving, whatever) your punishment is severe.

 

For guns. You can buy guns. But if you or your gun hurts someone else, your punishment is severe.

 

The problem is that the powers that be, dont want these rules. They are afraid of what will happen when they are caught breaking them. They want to ensure that the loopholes are there for themselves and their family.

 

Like I said, this position is in the minority. Most people want to create rules that ban behaviors they dont like. They like to use rules to control people. That is why they have the jobs they do, they like rules, they like power, they like to tell people what to do, because they think they are smarter than everyone else.

[Quin]

Oh hell no that guy is back.

[Texsox]

So to steal a point from an earlier post, how much do you 'restrict' the sales? Millions of people purchase and own guns with no problems, how much to you screw them to keep the guns away from a few bad apples? You already have laws keeping felons and crazy people from owning them. What MORE laws do you want in their place? You already have laws making it a crime to shoot people, use guns in commission of a crime and so on, what MORE laws do you want? Somewhere there is a point where restricting the supply of guns on the hope of keeping them away from a handful of bad people that will get them infringes on the rights of others to have them as well. I still call your attempts at restrictions to be just like a poll tax.

 

And nobody anywhere ever said we should allow 'unlimited sales'. You just threw that in there to be absurd and over the top like usual.

 

Handful of bad apples? What do you call a handful?

[EvilMonkey]

The problem is that the powers that be, dont want these rules. They are afraid of what will happen when they are caught breaking them. They want to ensure that the loopholes are there for themselves and their family.

 

Like I said, this position is in the minority. Most people want to create rules that ban behaviors they dont like. They like to use rules to control people. That is why they have the jobs they do, they like rules, they like power, they like to tell people what to do, because they think they are smarter than everyone else.

I actually mostly agree with you here.

[EvilMonkey]

Handful of bad apples? What do you call a handful?

Compared to the gun owners that don't do the bad things, a handful.

[Balta1701]

And nobody anywhere ever said we should allow 'unlimited sales'. You just threw that in there to be absurd and over the top like usual.

Effectively this is the case right now though.

 

Thanks to the gun show loophole, anyone who has money can buy a gun from a private seller without a background check. Anyone. It doesn't have to be legal for that person to do so. There is literally no way of enforcing the rules on who can buy a gun when this loophole sits there.

 

There's a website version of Craigslist that effectively does just that, for crying out loud. Anyone who wants to avoid being background checked can go there and find a private seller in an organized way.