Leave a Reply

avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
patriot2013jrd
Guest

sorry for post..ha..new at this, never posted anything before a few days ago. Did take your advice and space it out with a few number ideas. Will try to get better and less wordy but just wanted to get thoughts on paper…in future, will be more succinct. ha. yeah, right.

patriot2013jrd
Guest
I have posted and bantered with gravitysailor a few times and found him to be fairly reasonable, therefore, I have a few questions for him. Why would you not want law-abiding,responsible citizens to have 30 bullets in a magazine? Also, why do the words ” shall not be infringed” not mean what they say? What would you think of people infringing on the 1st amendment? Or a national registration of all people who had any mental issues or taken psychotropic drugs or consulted with counselors, psychiatrists or psychologists? There was an opening of limiting the 2nd amendment, with a high bar, but, please don’t use the classic example of yelling “fire” in a theater to show limits on 1st amendment rights. You can burn the flag, call anyone anything, curse out law officers, give the finger to anyone and put holy pictures in urine under freedom of speech, lie to anyone and so many other examples, I won’t bore you with them. “Fire” is the only limit most people quote. It is not even a close comparison. An approximate analogy would be if you would restrict law abiding citizens from speaking in the theater by duct taping their mouths closed,… Read more »
patriot2013jrd
Guest

One last thought, Gun laws don’t work. Only the law abiding citizen obeys them and they are already “LAW ABIDING”. The mental ill and the criminal could not care less about any law. thnx

patriot2013jrd
Guest
I have posted and bantered with gravitysailor a few times and found him to be fairly reasonable, therefore, I have a few questions for him. Why would you not want law-abiding,responsible citizens to have 30 bullets in a magazine? Also, why do the words ” shall not be infringed” not mean what they say? What would you think of people infringing on the 1st amendment? Or a national registration of all people who had any mental issues or taken psychotropic drugs or consulted with counselors, psychiatrists or psychologists? There was an opening of limiting the 2nd amendment, with a high bar, but, please don’t use the classic example of yelling “fire” in a theater to show limits on 1st amendment rights. You can burn the flag, call anyone anything, curse out law officers, give the finger to anyone and put holy pictures in urine under freedom of speech, lie to anyone and so many other examples, I won’t bore you with them. “Fire” is the only limit most people quote. It is not even a close comparison. An approximate analogy would be if you would restrict law abiding citizens from speaking in the theater by duct taping their mouths closed,… Read more »
patriot2013jrd
Guest
I have posted and bantered with gravitysailor a few times and found him to be fairly reasonable, therefore, I have a few questions for him. Why would you not want law-abiding,responsible citizens to have 30 bullets in a magazine? Also, why do the words ” shall not be infringed” not mean what they say? What would you think of people infringing on the 1st amendment? Or a national registration of all people who had any mental issues or taken psychotropic drugs or consulted with counselors, psychiatrists or psychologists? There was an opening of limiting the 2nd amendment, with a high bar, but, please don’t use the classic example of yelling “fire” in a theater to show limits on 1st amendment rights. You can burn the flag, call anyone anything, curse out law officers, give the finger to anyone and put holy pictures in urine under freedom of speech, lie to anyone and so many other examples, I won’t bore you with them. “Fire” is the only limit most people quote. It is not even a close comparison. An approximate analogy would be if you would restrict law abiding citizens from speaking in the theater by duct taping their mouths closed,… Read more »
greghsmith
Guest

It’s a matter of you not having the right to say I can’t have a 30 round magazine for my simi-automatic rifle. The Second Amendment was written to threaten a tyranical gov’t. with a well armed populace. We’ve learned by observing European history that totalitarianism requires disarmament. I will not disarm.

Admiral
Member

@greghsmith I agree, the 2nd amendment was and is about protection from the government–that was the framers intent.  I guess I am more trusting of our government and do not fear them nor feel threatened by them.  Of course, the 2nd Amendment also refers to a well-armed  and regulated “Militia”, not a well-armed populace.
 
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
 
One could argue that as long as State’s militias are fully armed and regulated than that is sufficient protection from the Feds.  But as you likely know, SCOTUS ruled in 2008 ( District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570,  that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.  Not surprisingly, a 5-4 decision, and I bet you can guess who was in the majority and who dissented.
 
In my humble opinion, I disagree with SCOTUS majority and feel the framers clearly intended for State militia’s to protect against totalitarianism–a legitimate concern.

gibbleth
Guest
@GravitySailor  @greghsmith  The ‘militia’ is, of course, a term of art well defined in history, to include all able-bodied males in a certain age range.  This means ‘everybody’.  The second amendment has an explanatory clause, which is not a limiting clause except by special pleading from those who wish to ban guns.  Were this sort of logic used on the first, fourth, fifth or fourteenth amendments, where would we be?   ‘A well-ordered militia’ does not mean the same today as it did then.  We think of a militia that is well-disciplined, whereas the framers thought of a militia able to muster with its own arms and ammunition, which was expected to be provided by the militia member.  Remember, as per above, the militia is every able-bodied male.  Every.  This is the construction underpinning Heller and is absolutely correct from any rational position.   We have literally acres of dead trees on the subject, exhorting the country to avoid a standing army and develop a citizen soldiery the more to protect against tyranny.  One of the primary framers of the constitution, Thomas Jefferson, repeatedly insisted that the only way to freedom is through rebellion and that all governments tend towards tyranny… Read more »
gibbleth
Guest
Eh.  It isn’t a question of ‘who needs it’, as freedom isn’t about what you need, it is about letting you do what you want.  Since there isn’t a valid reason to ban high capacity magazines, there isn’t any reason to defend having them.   Seriously, Klebold and Harris shot up Columbine with guns that contained ten rounds or fewer.  During an actual massacre, seldom does the time taken to replace the magazine matter.   Anyway, in typical liberal fashion, proponents of the ten round limit seldom see any down side, such as the rise of more lethal rounds.  Prior to the ten round limit, the 9mm was by far the weapon of choice amongst gangs.  After, the 12ga shotgun made inroads.  8 rounds of 12ga is roughly equivalent to over 70 rounds of 9mm.   Arguing for the ten round limit instead of arming people in positions of responsibility is arguing that the first ten victims’ lives don’t matter, as you’re hoping to slow the shooter down enough in between reloading to charge him or whatever.  It’s kind of sick if you think of it.   The only way to stop this madness is to put arms in the… Read more »
gibbleth
Guest
Eh.  It isn’t a question of ‘who needs it’, as freedom isn’t about what you need, it is about letting you do what you want.  Since there isn’t a valid reason to ban high capacity magazines, there isn’t any reason to defend having them.   Seriously, Klebold and Harris shot up Columbine with guns that contained ten rounds or fewer.  During an actual massacre, seldom does the time taken to replace the magazine matter.   Anyway, in typical liberal fashion, proponents of the ten round limit seldom see any down side, such as the rise of more lethal rounds.  Prior to the ten round limit, the 9mm was by far the weapon of choice amongst gangs.  After, the 12ga shotgun made inroads.  8 rounds of 12ga is roughly equivalent to over 70 rounds of 9mm.   Arguing for the ten round limit instead of arming people in positions of responsibility is arguing that the first ten victims’ lives don’t matter, as you’re hoping to slow the shooter down enough in between reloading to charge him or whatever.  It’s kind of sick if you think of it.   The only way to stop this madness is to put arms in the… Read more »
gibbleth
Guest
Eh.  It isn’t a question of ‘who needs it’, as freedom isn’t about what you need, it is about letting you do what you want.  Since there isn’t a valid reason to ban high capacity magazines, there isn’t any reason to defend having them.   Seriously, Klebold and Harris shot up Columbine with guns that contained ten rounds or fewer.  During an actual massacre, seldom does the time taken to replace the magazine matter.   Anyway, in typical liberal fashion, proponents of the ten round limit seldom see any down side, such as the rise of more lethal rounds.  Prior to the ten round limit, the 9mm was by far the weapon of choice amongst gangs.  After, the 12ga shotgun made inroads.  8 rounds of 12ga is roughly equivalent to over 70 rounds of 9mm.   Arguing for the ten round limit instead of arming people in positions of responsibility is arguing that the first ten victims’ lives don’t matter, as you’re hoping to slow the shooter down enough in between reloading to charge him or whatever.  It’s kind of sick if you think of it.   The only way to stop this madness is to put arms in the… Read more »
gibbleth
Guest
Eh.  It isn’t a question of ‘who needs it’, as freedom isn’t about what you need, it is about letting you do what you want.  Since there isn’t a valid reason to ban high capacity magazines, there isn’t any reason to defend having them.   Seriously, Klebold and Harris shot up Columbine with guns that contained ten rounds or fewer.  During an actual massacre, seldom does the time taken to replace the magazine matter.   Anyway, in typical liberal fashion, proponents of the ten round limit seldom see any down side, such as the rise of more lethal rounds.  Prior to the ten round limit, the 9mm was by far the weapon of choice amongst gangs.  After, the 12ga shotgun made inroads.  8 rounds of 12ga is roughly equivalent to over 70 rounds of 9mm.   Arguing for the ten round limit instead of arming people in positions of responsibility is arguing that the first ten victims’ lives don’t matter, as you’re hoping to slow the shooter down enough in between reloading to charge him or whatever.  It’s kind of sick if you think of it.   The only way to stop this madness is to put arms in the… Read more »
gibbleth
Guest
Eh.  It isn’t a question of ‘who needs it’, as freedom isn’t about what you need, it is about letting you do what you want.  Since there isn’t a valid reason to ban high capacity magazines, there isn’t any reason to defend having them.   Seriously, Klebold and Harris shot up Columbine with guns that contained ten rounds or fewer.  During an actual massacre, seldom does the time taken to replace the magazine matter.   Anyway, in typical liberal fashion, proponents of the ten round limit seldom see any down side, such as the rise of more lethal rounds.  Prior to the ten round limit, the 9mm was by far the weapon of choice amongst gangs.  After, the 12ga shotgun made inroads.  8 rounds of 12ga is roughly equivalent to over 70 rounds of 9mm.   Arguing for the ten round limit instead of arming people in positions of responsibility is arguing that the first ten victims’ lives don’t matter, as you’re hoping to slow the shooter down enough in between reloading to charge him or whatever.  It’s kind of sick if you think of it.   The only way to stop this madness is to put arms in the… Read more »
Admiral
Member
@gibbleth Thank you for your thoughts,  you made some very good points.  I agree with some, but not all–let me know what you think.   Freedom while awesome is not absolute, especially if it risks harm to others.   It’s all about Balance.  So if you WANT to own a high-capacity magazine but they are routinely stolen and resold on the black market, society is currently weighing your WANT vs. societal RISK. Not sure who prevails there, but I hope that decision is based on hard numbers.  As you know, we are a country committed to the rule of law, and everyone accepts, although doesn’t agree with every law, so if Congress determines a limit will reduce risk then a restriction may pass.     Lots of people WANT firecrackers, kind of minor compared to guns; but society in many states has banned or severely restricted them–in the name of safety–so apparently you can’t always do what you WANT.  If people can’t handle firecrackers do we really want them running around with assault weapons?  Just last week there were two accidents at gun shows, and those people have an idea what they’re doing!   As for the first 10 lives not… Read more »
gibbleth
Guest
@GravitySailor  @gibbleth  I will once again reiterate my primary point, that the restrictions on high-capacity magazines will not have any measurable effect on massacres.  There is no reason to constrain freedom in this case, and we must require a very powerful reason to constrain freedom, not just the group fear that is alive right now.   As for confiscating guns, never mind that it would tear this country apart, when I hear that, I try to charitably assume the speaker uninformed.  I am sorry if that is offensive, but you are asking for tens of thousands of women to be raped, tens of thousands of people to be killed, and an unknown amount of property to be damaged or stolen by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.  People who argue we need to get rid of guns to ‘think of the children’ are asking for untold suffering for those not in the media limelight in exchange for a few saved lives.  Not that I intend to belittle the suffering of those who have had their children shot; I merely wish to point out that guns save lives, reduce crime, particularly heinous, violent crime against those who cannot otherwise defend themselves, as… Read more »
Admiral
Member

@gibbleth  @GravitySailor 
You are formidable and I love your well-reasoned posts, but it is 2:30am in NYC and I must get to sleep;  so I will require more time before messing with your life.  Sleep tight!

gibbleth
Guest
@GravitySailor  Ok, now down to policy.  *Which* weapons to ban, then?  The 9mm carbine and shotguns used by Klebold and Harris to shoot up a school?  With 10 round clips?  The .22 rifle and double-barreled shotgun used to shoot up Cumbria in England?  The hunting rifle Charles Whitman used to devastating effect on the tower at UT Austin (yes, he had a lot of other guns, but it was the hunting rifle that gave him the devastating range and accuracy)?  The knives, hammers, cleavers, machetes used in China to kill 25 and wound 115 in two years (2010-2012)? The car used by Steven Allen Abrams to kill two and wound five?   I could go on listing them, but wikipedia beat me to it:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_primary_schools   That is, of course, only a list of primary school attacks.  Go ahead and be surprised that many, many of them are not gun related.  Most of those, of course, happen in places where it is difficult, if not impossible, to get a gun.   So, I reiterate my request, which I think is eminently reasonable, that, before one goes about enacting laws and restricting freedoms, one explain exactly why one thinks that the… Read more »
gibbleth
Guest
@GravitySailor  Ok, now down to policy.  *Which* weapons to ban, then?  The 9mm carbine and shotguns used by Klebold and Harris to shoot up a school?  With 10 round clips?  The .22 rifle and double-barreled shotgun used to shoot up Cumbria in England?  The hunting rifle Charles Whitman used to devastating effect on the tower at UT Austin (yes, he had a lot of other guns, but it was the hunting rifle that gave him the devastating range and accuracy)?  The knives, hammers, cleavers, machetes used in China to kill 25 and wound 115 in two years (2010-2012)? The car used by Steven Allen Abrams to kill two and wound five?   I could go on listing them, but wikipedia beat me to it:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_primary_schools   That is, of course, only a list of primary school attacks.  Go ahead and be surprised that many, many of them are not gun related.  Most of those, of course, happen in places where it is difficult, if not impossible, to get a gun.   So, I reiterate my request, which I think is eminently reasonable, that, before one goes about enacting laws and restricting freedoms, one explain exactly why one thinks that the… Read more »
Admiral
Member

@gibbleth  @GravitySailor 
There is no need to take away handguns, rifles, and shotguns……just mass killing weapons.  Of course you are free to have defensive weapons.

gibbleth
Guest
@GravitySailor  @gibbleth  I will once again reiterate my primary point, that the restrictions on high-capacity magazines will not have any measurable effect on massacres.  There is no reason to constrain freedom in this case, and we must require a very powerful reason to constrain freedom, not just the group fear that is alive right now.   As for confiscating guns, never mind that it would tear this country apart, when I hear that, I try to charitably assume the speaker uninformed.  I am sorry if that is offensive, but you are asking for tens of thousands of women to be raped, tens of thousands of people to be killed, and an unknown amount of property to be damaged or stolen by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.  People who argue we need to get rid of guns to ‘think of the children’ are asking for untold suffering for those not in the media limelight in exchange for a few saved lives.  Not that I intend to belittle the suffering of those who have had their children shot; I merely wish to point out that guns save lives, reduce crime, particularly heinous, violent crime against those who cannot otherwise defend themselves, as… Read more »
gibbleth
Guest
Eh.  It isn’t a question of ‘who needs it’, as freedom isn’t about what you need, it is about letting you do what you want.  Since there isn’t a valid reason to ban high capacity magazines, there isn’t any reason to defend having them.   Seriously, Klebold and Harris shot up Columbine with guns that contained ten rounds or fewer.  During an actual massacre, seldom does the time taken to replace the magazine matter.   Anyway, in typical liberal fashion, proponents of the ten round limit seldom see any down side, such as the rise of more lethal rounds.  Prior to the ten round limit, the 9mm was by far the weapon of choice amongst gangs.  After, the 12ga shotgun made inroads.  8 rounds of 12ga is roughly equivalent to over 70 rounds of 9mm.   Arguing for the ten round limit instead of arming people in positions of responsibility is arguing that the first ten victims’ lives don’t matter, as you’re hoping to slow the shooter down enough in between reloading to charge him or whatever.  It’s kind of sick if you think of it.   The only way to stop this madness is to put arms in the… Read more »
Admiral
Member

test post

wpDiscuz
Show Buttons
Hide Buttons