The reason one is guaranteed firearms to defend against a tyrany is because there will still be a state left to govern when the tyrant is overthrown, the purpose of a nuclear weapon is to eliminate the state you are opposing, not defending the state you live in. A nuclear weapon is inconsistent with the 2nd because it doesn't defend against a tyrannical state, it's sole purpose is to eliminate a state and make it uninhabitable.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230048]Reloading takes time and provide windows of opportunity for people to escape a shooter.[/QUOTE]
So we should ban magazines as opposed to reforming the mental healthcare system(and the healthcare system overall) and preventing people from becoming the kind of person that goes out and guns down a ton of people.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230024]4% of 10,000 is still 400 people!!!!!![/QUOTE]
and 400 people is still only 4%. instead of needlessly and pointlessly banning firearms by name and looks, how about we work on the actual causes like a failing mental healthcare system or poverty levels in urban environments?
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230024]4% of 10,000 is still 400 people!!!!!!
Also i'm for banning handguns.[/QUOTE]
It's actually about 8,000 deaths are firearm deaths in the U.S. so congratulations you don't even know the stats.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39230053]The reason one is guaranteed firearms to defend against a tyrany is because there will still be a state left to govern when the tyrant is overthrown, the purpose of a nuclear weapon is to eliminate the state you are opposing, not defending the state you live in. A nuclear weapon is inconsistent with the 2nd because it doesn't defend against a tyrannical state, it's sole purpose is to eliminate a state and make it uninhabitable.[/QUOTE]
Deterrence.
ALSO: fyi all the people talking about resisting the government - we'd likely be able to do, even with all our guns, jack shit if our government turned Nazi on us. They have drones that can spot us from miles away in the sky. Automatic weapons, tanks, etc.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230048]Reloading takes time and provide windows of opportunity for people to escape a shooter.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to go ahead and assume you've never held a firearm in your life. I can reload my Mosin Nagant in about 5 seconds with a stripper clip, my SG556 I can take out a mag and insert a new one in 2-3, and in my AK it takes 5, and I'm not a trained or heavily skilled shooter. 5 seconds is not that big of a window, and I'm sure you're against concealed carry so nobody would be able to take advantage of that window.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230078]Deterrence.
ALSO: fyi all the people talking about resisting the government - we'd likely be able to do, even with all our guns, jack shit if our government turned Nazi on us. They have drones that can spot us from miles away in the sky. Automatic weapons, tanks, etc.[/QUOTE]
So we should all lay down and give up instead?
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230078]Deterrence.
ALSO: fyi all the people talking about resisting the government - we'd likely be able to do, even with all our guns, jack shit if our government turned Nazi on us. They have drones that can spot us from miles away in the sky. Automatic weapons, tanks, etc.[/QUOTE]
Resistance is still resistance, the military would have mass defections around the time the first shots are fired.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230078]Deterrence.
ALSO: fyi all the people talking about resisting the government - we'd likely be able to do, even with all our guns, jack shit if our government turned Nazi on us. They have drones that can spot us from miles away in the sky. Automatic weapons, tanks, etc.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, surely every soldier would say "Oh boy, I'm so happy I've been ordered to massacre my family, friends, and countrymen. I'm certainly not going to disobey or defect." and the rest of the world would go "Hey, look at the US going all fucking ballistic on civilians. Let's just let 'em do their thing."
Right to bear arms, doesn't say what kinda of arms they are. Just that you have rights to bear some arms.
Hi Cap is obviously outside this.
Automatic Rifles would also be outside.
I'm prepared to receive dumbs, because I know you people love your guns. But I have guns too, I just don't feel like it's nessisary for the populous to own military grade firearms. Why can't you guys just be happy with rifles and shotguns like everyone else?
There are lots of cases where the government has to decide whether or not to value the good of the country as a whole (which would lead to a total gun ban) and the rights of the individual (which would be total anarchy in some sense.)
Now with Gay marriage everyone says: "No we must keep the 'good of the country' sacred! We must not allow gays to ruin marriage!" But when it comes to guns you say "Constitution! Constitution! Constitution!"
Well, where are they're rights?
I'm so glad I live in Canada, where we do have assault rifles, but it takes a slew of paperwork to get them. They also have limited magazine sizes.
If you guys wanna look up good gun law, check out Canadian gun law.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39230080]I'm going to go ahead and assume you've never held a firearm in your life. I can reload my Mosin Nagant in about 5 seconds with a stripper clip, my SG556 I can take out a mag and insert a new one in 2-3, and in my AK it takes 5, and I'm not a trained or heavily skilled shooter. 5 seconds is not that big of a window, and I'm sure you're against concealed carry so nobody would be able to take advantage of that window.[/QUOTE]I have fired firearms actually, I wouldn't say im experienced in them but as a Boy Scout i've fired .22s, 12 gauge, 20 gauge, and my friends AR-15 re-fitted to fire .22s.
I think you are missing a huge part of the equation, which is frequency of shots per reload. Yeah, it takes you 5 seconds for each gun to reload (factor in your heart pumping and shit and it'd probabably be more, but w/e)
With an AK you can fire 30 rounds, reload, then fire another 30. There is a 5 second window of opportunity that the shooter is 'unarmed' if you will, and is able to fire 60 shots.
With your mossin you get 5 shots, reload (5 seconds), then 5 shots. Then reload, then shoot. In 60 shots, there are 55 seconds of you being "unarmed". Thats a load of difference dude.
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;39230118]Yeah, surely every soldier would say "Oh boy, I'm so happy I've been ordered to massacre my family, friends, and countrymen. I'm certainly not going to disobey or defect." and the rest of the world would go "Hey, look at the US going all fucking ballistic on civilians. Let's just let 'em do their thing."[/QUOTE]
This is a true argument.
And yet.... no SHIT! If you trust the soldiers to resist and turn against the government if it became tyrannical, then all you are doing is further proving why civilians don't need firearms (not hi-capacity, not automatic, not handguns)
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230140]Right to bear arms, doesn't say what kinda of arms they are. Just that you have rights to bear some arms.
Hi Cap is obviously outside this.
Automatic Rifles would also be outside.
I'm prepared to receive dumbs, because I know you people love your guns. But I have guns too, I just don't feel like it's nessisary for the populous to own military grade firearms. Why can't you guys just be happy with rifles and shotguns like everyone else?[/QUOTE]
Why is "Hi Cap"(ie. standard magazine capacity) outside of the 2nd amendment?
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230140]Hi Cap is obviously outside this.[/QUOTE]
Define "high". 30 round mags have been standard capacity for a while.
[QUOTE]Automatic Rifles would also be outside.[/QUOTE]
They already require a six-months waiting period and a price in the tens of thousand dollars. I think they're already regulated enough.
[QUOTE]I just don't feel like it's nessisary for the populous to own military grade firearms.[/QUOTE]
In fact they already can't. They just [I]look[/I] military, but that's like saying a Ford Pinto with bodykits is a racecar.
[QUOTE]Why can't you guys just be happy with rifles and shotguns like everyone else?[/QUOTE]
We do. We're perfectly happy with semiautomatic rifles that happen to look like military ones.
nobody's ever going to go on a mass murder spree with a bolt action rifle though. and I know you're going to say "oh then just ban everything but bolt action rifles!"
I hope I don't have to explain why that's dumb.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;39230182]Why is "Hi Cap"(ie. standard magazine capacity) outside of the 2nd amendment?[/QUOTE]
Why are nukes outside the 2nd amendment? Why are tanks? Why are automatic weapons?
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230150]I have fired firearms actually, I wouldn't say im experienced in them but as a Boy Scout i've fired .22s, 12 gauge, 20 gauge, and my friends AR-15 re-fitted to fire .22s.
I think you are missing a huge part of the equation, which is frequency of shots per reload. Yeah, it takes you 5 seconds for each gun to reload (factor in your heart pumping and shit and it'd probabably be more, but w/e)
With an AK you can fire 30 rounds, reload, then fire another 30. There is a 5 second window of opportunity that the shooter is 'unarmed' if you will, and is able to fire 60 shots.
With your mossin you get 5 shots, reload (5 seconds), then 5 shots. Then reload, then shoot. In 60 shots, there are 55 seconds of you being "unarmed". Thats a load of difference dude.
[/quote]
Rifles aren't even used in most murders anyways so this discussion is mostly pointless, and last I recall there aren't very many bolt action pistols on the market.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230150]
This is a true argument.
And yet.... no SHIT! If you trust the soldiers to resist and turn against the government if it became tyrannical, then all you are doing is further proving why civilians don't need firearms.[/QUOTE]
Not all civilians have military training, and it's easier to resist with a rifle than it is a shovel.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;39230140]Right to bear arms, doesn't say what kinda of arms they are. Just that you have rights to bear some arms.
Hi Cap is obviously outside this.
Automatic Rifles would also be outside.
I'm prepared to receive dumbs, because I know you people love your guns. But I have guns too, I just don't feel like it's nessisary for the populous to own military grade firearms. Why can't you guys just be happy with rifles and shotguns like everyone else?[/QUOTE]
The time the 2nd Amendment was drafted everyone had muskets, as well as the military.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to own an semi-automatic rifle which resembles the military variant[or the military variant for that matter]?
These semi-auto rifles only account for roughly 0.85% - 2% of the overall firearm homicides in the United States, and the overall rifle homicide only accounts for 4%.
Hi-Cap Magazines are hardly used in mass-homicides and if anything are just considered a luxury for sportshooting. So why ban them?
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39230194]nobody's ever going to go on a mass murder spree with a bolt action rifle though. and I know you're going to say "oh then just ban everything but bolt action rifles!"
I hope I don't have to explain why that's dumb.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand why that is dumb.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230217]I don't understand why that is dumb.[/QUOTE]
because 96% of firearm homicide is not committed with rifles.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230196]Why are nukes outside the 2nd amendment? Why are tanks? Why are automatic weapons?[/QUOTE]
A few more rounds vs an armored vehicle with a giant gun(which you can actually own, given you jump through some hoops. Same for automatic weapons). I think we've already been over why the nuke example is stupid.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39230208]Rifles aren't even used in most murders anyways so this discussion is mostly pointless, and last I recall there aren't very many bolt action pistols on the market.
[/quote]
I'm for banning handguns.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230225]I'm for banning handguns.[/QUOTE]
How about instead of feel-gooding we actually address the problems?
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230217]I don't understand why that is dumb.[/QUOTE]
Because you'd be making a good % of the US population criminals by banning semi autos.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;39230223]because 96% of firearm homicide is not committed with rifles.[/QUOTE]
Ban handguns. Only allow bolt-action.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230150]I think you are missing a huge part of the equation, which is frequency of shots per reload. Yeah, it takes you 5 seconds for each gun to reload (factor in your heart pumping and shit and it'd probabably be more, but w/e)
With an AK you can fire 30 rounds, reload, then fire another 30. There is a 5 second window of opportunity that the shooter is 'unarmed' if you will, and is able to fire 60 shots.
With your mossin you get 5 shots, reload (5 seconds), then 5 shots. Then reload, then shoot. In 60 shots, there are 55 seconds of you being "unarmed". Thats a load of difference dude.[/QUOTE]
This is all meaningless because it requires a spring, any type of saw capable of cutting metal, any thin sheet metal, and duct tape to make a magazine "high capacity". I can go make you a 60 round banana on my work bench over a beer, it'll break apart after three uses but if you're shooting up a place you only need an hour.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;39230245]This is all meaningless because it requires a spring, any type of saw capable of cutting metal, any thin sheet metal, and duct tape to make a magazine "high capacity".[/QUOTE]
Aren't there 10 round magazines that are only limited to 10 rounds by a single screw that can be removed even easier than that?
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39230240]Because you'd be making a good % of the US population criminals by banning semi autos.[/QUOTE]
They wouldn't automatically become criminals, they'd likely be allowed to turn in their guns and get some sort of rebate.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39230239]How about instead of feel-gooding we actually address the problems?[/QUOTE]
There's two sides to the gun problem, demand and supply. You need to address both.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230243]Ban handguns. Only allow bolt-action.[/QUOTE]
if 99% of firearm homicide isn't even mass murder then what does allowing bolt-actions do
I could cut down a bolt-action rifle and it would still be concealable and lethal. congratulations you haven't done anything to prevent homicide
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230150]With your mossin you get 5 shots, reload (5 seconds), then 5 shots. Then reload, then shoot. In 60 shots, there are 55 seconds of you being "unarmed". Thats a load of difference dude.[/QUOTE]
Harris and Klebold's arsenal mostly comprised low-capacity weapons, Cho's as well. Reloading after a few shots was definitely not an issue.
[QUOTE]If you trust the soldiers to resist and turn against the government if it became tyrannical, then all you are doing is further proving why civilians don't need firearms (not hi-capacity, not automatic, not handguns)[/QUOTE]
Didn't say ALL soldiers would disobey, but anyway in a "government's out to get you" situation I'd rather be armed. And again "resisting the government" is definitely not the only reason for civilians to own firearms.
[QUOTE=Flameon;39230225]I'm for banning handguns.[/QUOTE]
Guns aren't the fucking problem dood. Gun bans are literally just feel good bills passed to make soccer moms [b]feel[/b] safe taking their children to school. Aside from the fact that they fuck over legal firearms owners to a massive degree, they don't do very much to stop already illegal firearm owners. You'd be able to do so much more good if you spent the time, energy, and money working on our social issues, poverty levels in urban environments, failing mental healthcare system, and a dozen more problems.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
