RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 10:15:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drakvampire 58 580 5800 58000 Then tell us all how many a shooter can take ut in 10 minutes It looks like 58 doesn't it your inflated numbers are just that. You can't fire 5800 rounds in ten minutes without a mini gun and they belong to the military.

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 10:19:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drakvampire 58 580 5800 58000 Then tell us all how many a shooter can take ut in 10 minutes In ten minutes, maybe sixty, depending on the weapon.

Drakvampire -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 10:27:36 PM)
Perhapsjlf1961 & bamad should explain maths to me

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 10:44:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drakvampire Perhapsjlf1961 & bamad should explain maths to me Anyone who thinks it could have been 2000 must think he was just being nice by not killing that many and disqualifies himself from rational discussion.

Drakvampire -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/10/2017 10:53:49 PM)
It could have been: 500 5 000 50 000 I wager not one right wing nutter brought that up.

MercTech -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/11/2017 12:49:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drakvampire 58 580 5800 58000 Then tell us all how many a shooter can take ut in 10 minutes It depends on what you are shooting. Rifle, machine gun, phalanx cannon, 5 inch gun, Hellburner Missile, etc.

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/11/2017 4:29:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drakvampire Perhapsjlf1961 & bamad should explain maths to me It wouldnt matter if we did, you would not believe us anyway, but, in an attempt to explain. After each shot, you have to select, acquire, aim at the next, and that takes time, for precision shooting anyway. In a spray and pray shooting as the Vegas incident is beginning to look like, you are basically putting a lot of ammo down range, which means you are not really aiming, just hoping to hit something, unless the people you were shooting at were in some area where there was absolutely no where for them to go, in which case, yes your number is possible, if they were in a closed room, a dead end alley etc, and they did not rush the shooter every time he had to reload. Something a squad of British Army troops used to great effectiveness at the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in 1919. In fact, The Indian Arms Act, 1878 is the best argument FOR the 2nd that I have seen. Very ineffeceint, which is why modern military select fire weapons are set to fire three round bursts. Only in Hollywood does a burst of automatic fire hit every person down range. Another point to why this is inaccurate, muzzle climb. On full auto, the muzzle of the weapon climbs, so, again, unlike Hollywood, the barrel is steadily climbing up, which takes the stream of bullets up and away from the target. The exceptions to this are the SAW's, or team operated heavy barrels, which are mounted on vehicles or tripods, and during long bursts, these tend to walk due to vibration.

Musicmystery -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/11/2017 6:22:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery 3) If you believe a bunch of US citizens with firearms are any match for the US military, no logic will ever permeate your bizarre fantasy. For starters (let alone firepower and training), military brass is far smarter than to have a Rambo-esque shoot 'em up with a bunch of weekend cowboys. They'd take a far more strategic approach, and it would be largely over before people rang the bells and had a chance to start shooting. Come on. You aren't stupid. If you want to discuss this, let's have an honest, real discussion. As I stated, should the US government become such that the citizens will not stand for it, do you honestly think that government would have the backing of 100% of the US military? Second point, the Afghan rebels beat the Soviet Mechanized army to the point that after 10 years, the Soviets gave up on Afghanistan and got the hell out. While the US did supply shoulder launched anti aircraft missiles, and provide some training, the majority of the rebel forces were poorly armed, not trained and made it too costly for the Soviet military to stay in place. Third point, while armed citizens may not stand as a match against the US military, I have to point out that the US military is still stuck in the idea and philosophy of a symmetrical battle zone, i.e, the enemy has set lines etc, with the exceptions being the units created and trained in counter guerilla tactics. And the final point, which goes back to the 'do you honestly think that if the US citizens rebelled against an oppressive Federal government in force, the entire military would follow that government?" Thanks to President Bush sr, and the elected presidents that followed, many reserve and even national guard units have been equipped with equipment that is nearly equivalent to the regular forces. The last part of this point is extremely simple, since the court-martials of those involved in Mai Lai, during the Vietnam conflict, one of the primary focus with training is that personnel are trained that they are only required to follow legitimate legal orders of superior officers. At the point where those orders are to occupy US cities and towns with due to resistance to a tyrannical government, a good percentage would refuse such orders. So, while the armed civilians would not alone be enough to stand against the military, I do believe that enough of the military would balk at firing on American citizens and desert with their equipment to make a significant difference in the eventual outcome. Belief. Not an argument -- simply a belief.

Musicmystery -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/11/2017 6:51:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 So, yeah, we hold the second as sacred. We are an independent stubborn people who distrust anyone suggesting that we hang up our guns in some gun club or give them up completely. See, this is a good example of why I roll my eyes every time you and the brigade get fired up on this yet again. 1) Who you mean "we"? Certainly not me, and certainly not many Americans. Important? Yes. Sacred? You and I have very different ideas about what is and should be sacred. 2) "We" again -- I'm not so universally distrustful. So again, you speak for yourself and your compadres, not for America as one voice. 3) No one, beyond perhaps a very small minority, is suggesting or ever suggested you hang up guns in clubs or give them up. Hell, firearms are common in my neck of the woods. And they are used responsibly. And aside from a rare yard sign here and there belching out NRA talking points (usually about repealing NYS's Safe Act), folks are good with sensible regulation. This whole us/them gun battle crisis is largely in your head. Breathe.

Musicmystery -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/11/2017 6:53:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 According to the bbc, a source so often quoted by gun regulation supporters.... US gun deaths averaged 11000 a year between 2001 and 2011 Oh, good. Only 11,000 a year. No problem then. Do you even hear yourself? [8\|]

Musicmystery -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/11/2017 6:54:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Bama, these people insist guns cause violence. Take away the guns, the violence goes away. More silliness you made up. Go for a walk. The fresh air will do you good.

Musicmystery -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/11/2017 6:55:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix FR.... It's time we stop thinking that guns are a solution.... NOT ALL guns are a solution. Guns...are a solution...but........repeaters....not. Hallelujah -- some common sense.

Musicmystery -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/11/2017 6:58:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Which, by my understanding, none of you want the problem fixed, you want the guns banned and all gun owners treated like potential criminals for owning guns. Then your understanding is pretty damn poor.

Musicmystery -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/11/2017 6:59:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix FR.... It's time we stop thinking that guns are a solution.... NOT ALL guns are a solution. Guns...are a solution...but........repeaters....not. It is time we stop thinking that guns are the problem. Evil people are. And...guns that exceed our need to protect ourselves. There aren't any guns that exceed our need to protect ourselves. I suspect the folks in Las Vegas would share a rather different opinion. Second that.

Musicmystery -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/11/2017 7:03:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: Panic leads to bad laws. That's kind of the point: most of the panic I see here is that of gun owners - who are terrified that this latest massacre might just lead to gun control. You could say - and many have - that it's the ongoing sense of panic about being physically attacked, an overmighty government, etc, etc - that has led to the bad laws allowing so much gun freedom today. But the panic about the possibility of getting killed in the next massacre, that already seems to me to have started to ebb away. They trot out the same agenda every time. They push for freer gun carry, they sell more firearms, they do a fund-raiser, and the lemmings happily skip along behind them. It's almost comic.

Musicmystery -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/11/2017 7:05:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Ask any NRA member and they will agree, gun violence is a problem. And their solution? Free open carry everywhere. Basically, 19th century frontier.

WhoreMods -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/11/2017 7:08:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 So, yeah, we hold the second as sacred. We are an independent stubborn people who distrust anyone suggesting that we hang up our guns in some gun club or give them up completely. See, this is a good example of why I roll my eyes every time you and the brigade get fired up on this yet again. 1) Who you mean "we"? Certainly not me, and certainly not many Americans. Important? Yes. Sacred? You and I have very different ideas about what is and should be sacred. 2) "We" again -- I'm not so universally distrustful. So again, you speak for yourself and your compadres, not for America as one voice. 3) No one, beyond perhaps a very small minority, is suggesting or ever suggested you hang up guns in clubs or give them up. Hell, firearms are common in my neck of the woods. And they are used responsibly. And aside from a rare yard sign here and there belching out NRA talking points (usually about repealing NYS's Safe Act), folks are good with sensible regulation. This whole us/them gun battle crisis is largely in your head. Breathe. I've mentioned this before (I think in this thread rather than the other Vegas one), but it's worth repeating: there appears to be a deliberate exaggeration of the threat posed by the gun control enthusiasts on the part of the tooled up interest groups and their individual members. The notion that some sort of regulation could be effective in keeping guns away from nutcases who only want them for spree killing and criminals is (they argue) ridiculous and laughably unworkable, so obviously gun control would be a blanket ban on all firearms from children's bb guns up to reproduction muzzle loading cannons of the sort that are used to make a big bang at re-enactment events. It's a very odd syllogism indeed, but it gets accepted as a matter of course by a lot of the gun bunnies. It's almost as if they'd rather discuss a strawman that nobody (not even that lefty git Sanders) has seriously proposed, rather than the sort of damage limitation exercises that could be taken to keep guns out of the hands of dickheads.

Musicmystery -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/11/2017 7:09:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: The Constitution is a fairly sacred document to many Americans, even the ones that haven't read it since high school (of they went to high school). And like Christians and the Bible, we focus on the parts we like, and that justify our positions. Sure, I get that it's considered sacred. I see how that's desirable, too. But even more sacred than that is surely that part of the Declaration of Independence that states 'we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. Of course, those 59 dead have been deprived of their liberty and their ability to pursue happiness, along with their lives. It strikes me, from my no doubt simple outsider's point of view, that it's even more important than anything in the Constitution - including the 2nd, obviously - that America has failed most fundamentally of all insofar as it's not protected those people's rights to those three absolutely essential things. While I agree with the fundamentals of your argument, I disagree with your solution, that being to deny the rights of the 187000000 gun owners who have never taken another human life, or harmed another human with a gun. You have posted the numbers of US citizens killed by guns, but you fail to grasp that it is less than one percent (not even a one hundredth of a percent of gun owners) who have committed these heinous acts. So the only solution is to punish the guilty and innocent equally? So, I am curious, how would you handle the fact that in 2016, 330,000 people were injured in accidents caused by texting and driving? Just about every state has laws against it, but it still goes on, by people ignoring the law? The number of people killed in these accidents is, admittedly slightly lower at approximately 20,000. So, do we ban cars? Smart phones? There are a few hundred million of both in the US right now. It is preventable. The real kicker is that many point to guns as a preventable cause of death, which it is, and treat it as the leading cause of preventable deaths in the US, which it is not. [image]https://www.healthaliciousness.com/blog/images/Preventable_causes_of_death.png[/image] So, while people claim that car accidents are a non applicable comparison, in the argument of preventable deaths, I disagree. Why is it always necessary to resort to straw man and flawed analogy on this topic? Treating gun deaths as a preventable tragedy is exactly what most people support. Not your silly bans fears, not your silly ban cars and cell phones (note: texting while driving is illegal, at least in my state), not any of your silly extremes -- looking honestly and sensibly at reasonable solutions.

Musicmystery -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/11/2017 7:10:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Some people dying occassionally so that this world has some hope of free men is still worth it. Needless deaths at the hands of a madman is not the way to prove the argument. On this we agree.

Musicmystery -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/11/2017 7:12:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The guy in Vegas bought 33 guns in the last year, that should have raised flags on a system somewhere, and would have IF the system was set up right. Yeah, apparently he did it slowly and in several states. But yes, there's a flaw in the system that can and should be addressed.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625