Shooting at Conn Elementary 27 dead including kids

[Haroldthebarrel]

Hypothetically speaking.

If there was a guarantee of 100% that there would be no more school shootings if you handed in your gun. Would you do it?

Would you do it for 90%, 80%..... 50% or wouldnt you do it at all?

Originally Posted by houghtam

Or maybe, just maybe...does it mean that this nation was founded on compromise, and the blind adherence to the letter of the Constitution is just as much of a detriment to the country as disregarding it entirely?

Of course its a compromise. And nobody's talking about the 'letter' of the Constitution. Although that's the game the "It only means Militia" people like to play.

But there's little coherence to the Constitutional argument that we should simultaneously be militarizing the police while disarming the public. There's no honest interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which allows for that.

Going back to you worrying about what I 'need' in a gun. I own a useless .22 and a Winchester deer rifle (.270) Both have seen better days. But it's not about what I personally need. It's about whether a citizen has the right to present a credible resistance to a (theoretically) corrupt government. That's exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

It's about whether a citizen has the right to present a credible resistance to a (theoretically) corrupt government. That's exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written.

You're correct. It's a theoretical.

The reality is that we're already paying the cost for this theoretical.

Besides, the RKBA hasn't ever stopped the government from doing the wrong thing, going way back to the Whiskey Rebellion.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Of course its a compromise. And nobody's talking about the 'letter' of the Constitution. Although that's the game the "It only means Militia" people like to play.

But there's little coherence to the Constitutional argument that we should simultaneously be militarizing the police while disarming the public. There's no honest interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which allows for that.

Going back to you worrying about what I 'need' in a gun. I own a useless .22 and a Winchester deer rifle (.270) Both have seen better days. But it's not about what I personally need. It's about whether a citizen has the right to present a credible resistance to a (theoretically) corrupt government. That's exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written.

There is absolutely nothing anyone can do to protect themselves from our government if they should decide to enslave the populace. Nothing. If you think even an armed populace has a snowball's chance if the government turned on us, you're out of your ever-loving gourd. And it's been that way since Day 1. Furthermore, you keep arguing that the framers wanted guns for the citizens to keep the government from oppressing them, yet again, you neglect to even give treatment to the purposeful inclusion of "well-trained militia" into the Amendment. This is all over and above the fact that the framers themselves, as W*GS pointed out, were the ones to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. "Arm yourselves to protect yourselves from us, because here we come!" doesn't sound like a conclusion that the logical men who wrote the Constitution would have come to.

Originally Posted by Haroldthebarrel

If there was a guarantee of 100% that there would be no more school shootings if you handed in your gun. Would you do it?

Personally speaking, based on the fact that there is no evidence that owning a gun or possessing one either on your person or in your home actually has any effect on crime, and based on the fact that the majority of gun accidents occur in homes that have guns, I would be in favor of the following legislation:

- Permanent ban on assault weapons
- Permanent ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds
- Permanent ban on rifles over a certain muzzle velocity capable of semi-automatic fire
- Permanent ban of on-site storage of firearms where there is a resident under the age of 18

You can own certain types of firearms, no limit to number of firearms or number of ammunition, just types. You can own them, and if you have children in the home, you can store them off-site at a place like a gun club or Gander Mountain. You can still teach your kids gun safety and take them hunting, and the gun clubs and stores can charge a small nominal fee for secure storage.

Originally Posted by W*GS

You're correct. It's a theoretical.

The reality is that we're already paying the cost for this theoretical.

Besides, the RKBA hasn't ever stopped the government from doing the wrong thing, going way back to the Whiskey Rebellion.

There's a massive Seen vs Unseen fallacy here. It's pretty difficult (impossible) to prove why something that didn't happen didn't happen.

But let's just say that there's a reason that gun bans (including 1994's, and even earlier prohibitions on fully-automatic weapons) only address manufacture and sales instead of confiscation. Your government wants no part of going house to house. Which is good for both sides. Because that apprehension is a last level of protection.

This really comes down to a certain segment of people having far more faith in their government than the Constitution and its authors ever thought prudent. In a lot of ways it's success has bred the complacency that might someday work to undo it.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

-Patrick Henry, having about as much faith in Congress as was warranted.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

They think maybe if the guy goes to reload his clip he gets taken down. Where if he had a 30 round clip he would have kept shooting.

They think that more background checks will lead to less guns being sold to felons and other criminals/crazy people.

I guess outside of that even they admit that really gun deaths probably won't go down much. At least not this round of regulations. The long term plan is to keep chipping away until guns illegal to own period.

Imagine the illegal market with all these guns in the country.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

This really comes down to a certain segment of people having far more faith in their government than the Constitution and its authors ever thought prudent.

It's more about a certain segment of people having far more paranoia regarding their government than even the Founders thought reasonable.

Originally Posted by W*GS

It's more about a certain segment of people having far more paranoia regarding their government than even the Founders thought reasonable.

Yeah, totally.

"but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29.

Wagz' translation "Trust your government! They know best! (as long as my guy runs it)"

Death throes of the Roman Republic translation...

"Few men desire freedom, the greater part desire just masters."

Originally Posted by houghtam

There is absolutely nothing anyone can do to protect themselves from our government if they should decide to enslave the populace. Nothing.

Exactly. That's what makes invading and governing 3rd world countries like Iraq and Afghanistan so simple and safe. AMIRITE?

How well armed were the Vietnamese?

[W*GS]

Amazing how Mubarak was overthrown without a massive armed revolution, eh?

If you *really* want to be able to take on the gubmit, you should strongly oppose any restrictions on weaponry - take the 2nd Amendment as absolute.

Forget semi-autos. Full-auto.

RPGs. SAMs. Artillery. Tanks. WMDs.

Go fer it.

Originally Posted by W*GS

Amazing how Mubarak was overthrown without a massive armed revolution, eh?

If you *really* want to be able to take on the gubmit, you should strongly oppose any restrictions on weaponry - take the 2nd Amendment as absolute.

Forget semi-autos. Full-auto.

RPGs. SAMs. Artillery. Tanks. WMDs.

Go fer it.

First you argued from absence of evidence. Then you moved on to say the Founders' didn't really mean what was said. Now you've moved on to ridicule what they said. Is this the last refuge, or will there be another one to follow?

Oh, and Mubarak was overthrown because the military allowed him to be.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-7341749.html

Or did you really believe that the dictatorship simply dissolved in the face of protest signs and thrown rocks?

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Yeah, totally.



Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29.

Wagz' translation "Trust your government! They know best! (as long as my guy runs it)"

Death throes of the Roman Republic translation...

"Few men desire freedom, the greater part desire just masters."

Do you even know what it means to be "trained in the discipline and use of arms" in the context of 18th century America? You're a fool if you don't think it means something completely different than today.

Originally Posted by houghtam

Do you even know what it means to be "trained in the discipline and use of arms" in the context of 18th century America? You're a fool if you don't think it means something completely different than today.

Red Herring. What does that have to do with Alex pointing to an armed populace being the best antidote to the threat of a standing army?

You keep arguing that we the people pose zero threat to the standing army Hamilton and others said we were supposed to balance.. Essentially you're arguing that the we the people should become even more heavily armed and even better prepared. As I said earlier, the founders believed being ably armed was a civic duty, not just a privilege. Being lax in your duty doesn't nullify the obligation.

[W*GS]

Go ahead and see how far your fantasies of fighting off the gubmit go with the populace outside of the RKBA purist nujobs.

In the meantime, tell us how we can lessen the ~100,000 deaths and injuries from firearms we have every year.

PS - More guns in more hands in more places ain't the answer.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by houghtam

I would be in favor of the following legislation:

- Permanent ban on assault weapons
- Permanent ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds
- Permanent ban on rifles over a certain muzzle velocity capable of semi-automatic fire
- Permanent ban of on-site storage of firearms where there is a resident under the age of 18

You can own certain types of firearms, no limit to number of firearms or number of ammunition, just types. You can own them, and if you have children in the home, you can store them off-site at a place like a gun club or Gander Mountain. You can still teach your kids gun safety and take them hunting, and the gun clubs and stores can charge a small nominal fee for secure storage.

Has anyone ever told you to GO **** YOURSELF?

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Go ahead and see how far your fantasies of fighting off the gubmit go with the populace outside of the RKBA purist nujobs.

In the meantime, tell us how we can lessen the ~100,000 deaths and injuries from firearms we have every year.

PS - More guns in more hands in more places ain't the answer.

Cutthemdown gave you your answer. Beavis simply doesn't have an answer. Cut thinks that those deaths and injuries are a small price to pay for the fun and false sense of security gun ownership provides. Beavis thinks they're a small price to pay for the right to be paranoid about a massive government takeover.

Neither stance is based in any sense of rational, reasonable thought, nor are they based on amy sort of statistical evidence, and neither person is really interested in the reduction of violence. They simply want to keep their guns, and need to hide behind those stances because they can't really provide any compelling reason there needs to be those types of weapons available to the general public.

And Beavis, Hamilton wasn't pointing to the necessity of an armed populace in the sense you're thinking of. "Trained in the discipline and use of arms" is the exact phrasing that many of the military drill manuals of the day used.

Militias. Context.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Has anyone ever told you to GO **** YOURSELF?

Plenty of tough guys have on message boards. No one to my face, though.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Plenty of tough guys have on message boards. No one to my face, though.

Michigan must be full of pussies then.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Michigan must be full of pussies then.

Sooooo...nothing to add to the argument?

Do you feel better, Nancy? Get it out of your system, did you?

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Sooooo...nothing to add to the argument?

Do you feel better, Nancy? Get it out of your system, did you?

Feel much better. With the bull**** you proposed, i'd happily tell you to go **** yourself to your face. I'm not trying to be a tough guy. The things you propose only punish honest citizens. So what would you expect? If I were to say workers unions should be banned, i would expect you to tell me to go **** myself.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

Feel much better. With the bull**** you proposed, i'd happily tell you to go **** yourself to your face. I'm not trying to be a tough guy. The things you propose only punish honest citizens. So what would you expect? If I were to say workers unions should be banned, i would expect you to tell me to go **** myself.

What do unions have to do with your perceived need for a high-powered rifle or a 30 round mag? Has there been a recent rash of union members opening fire on school children?

Please. Form a logical argument based on facts and statistics, and then you can discuss things at the grown up table.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by houghtam

What do unions have to do with your perceived need for a high-powered rifle or a 30 round mag? Has there been a recent rash of union members opening fire on school children?

Please. Form a logical argument based on facts and statistics, and then you can discuss things at the grown up table.

I was making a comparison of things each of us find important. You're kinda slow. And i don't "need" a high powered rifle but it is my right to have one.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

I was making a comparison of things each of us find important. You're kinda slow. And i don't "need" a high powered rifle but it is my right to have one.

Answer this question honestly:

Why shouldn't it be legal for you to own a .50 caliber Browning M2?

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by houghtam

There is absolutely nothing anyone can do to protect themselves from our government if they should decide to enslave the populace. Nothing.

Are you saying that 300 million people with 300 million guns can't protect themselves if the 535 people making the rules decide to enslave us?

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Arkie

Are you saying that 300 million people with 300 million guns can't protect themselves if the 535 people making the rules decide to enslave us?

Try approximately 45% of adults (~100,000,000) with 300,000,000 guns.

It will never happen, not because the government is afraid of all you big bad gun owners...here's a clue: they're not.

It's because there is literally no reason to think that the government is coming after your guns. Just certain, reasonable types of arms and ammo. What would be the benefit? Seriously. Please explain to me what benefit the government could hope to gain from getting rid of all guns? They already own you.