Guys, please educate me on this 2nd Amendment Issue, I'm trying to understand

[AntonToo]

My Canadian friend I'll explain to you very simply - here in United States we have many gun nuts, people who love guns not for any practical reason, but out of emotional attachment. Guns feel so damn cool, they satisfy control and fear impulses and feeds into the whole freedom fighter ideological thing...and of course all that gets slightly spoiled if you can't have the biggest, baddest gun around.

There is only one reason assault conversion kits exist - to convert guns into those of illegal sort. There is not a single rational reason that those kits should remain legal while assault weapons are illegal...but it's not about rationality, it's about wanting that big gun and preserving the loophole to be able to get it.

Complete falsehood.

You think you can at some point be bothered to put your big-boy pants on and start to support your bare assertions?

 

[RDD_1210]

Show us where they sell a 600 round magazine for such a weapon.

Who said anything about a 600 round magazine?

Do you understand what "rate of fire" means?

But you didn't say that. You said..."but it can fire 600 rounds per minute....", that's what you said. You didn't say rate of fire. So stop your double talking nonsense and tell us all where you can get a 600 round mag so it can shoot 600 rounds per minute like you said it could?

Do you understand what rate of fire means?
I can drive at 60 mph without actually driving 60 miles

He's literally too dumb to grasp this.

why do you ignore the fact that he didn't say that?

He said 600 rounds per minute. "per" indicates a rate. Not a total quantity.

Remind us about the last level of school you completed successfully.

 

[RDD_1210]

But you didn't say that. You said..."but it can fire 600 rounds per minute....", that's what you said. You didn't say rate of fire.

Do us a favor. Leave the gun talk and gun decisions to us. Thanks.

Why?

Because your inability to grasp even basic concepts disqualifies you from adult discussions.

 

[RDD_1210]

Gun control can work, but this country is too bought and paid for my lobbyists and the NRA for anything to ever change.

We had a competent president in office when dozens of children were murdered at school and not only did nothing change, gun laws on the whole become more lenient as a result.

So there is NO way anything is changing knowing the president we have and the fact that our government is still bought and paid for.

 

[AntonToo]

Kinda crazy to watch intellectually developed President speak after witnessing Trump for half a year.

 

[bendog]

As someone who has never grown up with weapons, outside of video games; I need to understand the issue some have with the Second Amendment and automatics.

I appreciate your Constitution, and really I envy it in fact being from Canada as I think it's an amazing document, but far more important, a cherished document defended by so many. So, even those who I may disagree with in general on certain issues, I certainly respect your position on this.

Now I'd like to be educated by those who know alot more than I do about this issue as all I hear in Canada is "gun control gun control. gun control". Many left wing Americans going to CBC and other Canadian networks and promoting this idea, basically criminalizing anyone who supports the Second Amendment in some cases, and I instinctively know there are two sides to this issue.

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

Thoughts on this? Should it be banned? Should ownership of fully automatics come with legal consequences or is there a logical argument for ownership of this weapon?

Thanks in advance.

Not wanting to get into partisanship on the issue, but these sites seem educational and without an agenda. Of course people will say that an article merely stating what courts have held in partisan because their personal interpretations should control what the constitution means. And I have no patience for their bullshit.

The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Second Amendment

The Cornell site discusses briefly the three most important court cases. My own editorial is that the first case, Miller, is both logically and historically dishonest because it had to reach a result, i.e. it had to be illegal in the 1930s for gangsters to carry sawed off shotguns. At the time of the decision, the Second Amendment was considered more about the states maintaining militas than individual rights to own guns, so if a gun was useful for a milita, it had some protection. (Although most everyone in the rural US had access to firearms, but they were regular old rifles shotguns and revolvers .. which was sort of the point of the Miller decision - a sawed off shotgun isn't much use unless you are trying to kill something at close range).

The Supreme Court reached this laudable result by reasoning that cut-down shotguns were not military weapons. But that was total bs because the US Army (and the Canadians too perhaps) used shotguns in WWI trench warfare. Miller was also logically false because according to it, the government could ban the sale of Thompson submachine guns, which gangsters were thought to favor. But Winston Churchill shortly thereafter began importing as many of those guns as he could for the war against Hitler.

Fast forward some fifty years later. Some cities were trying to eliminate hand guns. (and possibly other home defense firearms). Given the US's history from colonial times, FIVE out of NINE judges in Heller and again in McDonald just found it unacceptable that a government could prevent a person from keeping a loaded and ready to fire handgun in his own home. Other restrictions might be ok. Assault rifles? Carrying pistols outside the home? We now have different laws in different states. People disagree over what is reasonably restricted.

Some people contend Heller is totally wrong, and there is no individual right to own guns. the Supreme Court disagrees, and probably won't change its mind. Other people say they have an absolute right to own whatever they want (presumably not including actual machine guns or rocket launchers) any damn place they choose. The Supreme Court has not agreed, and most likely is not going to.

btw, Canadian gun laws have always seemed historically curious to me - no insult intended in anyway. US gun laws are historically curious too. For example, in the 19th Century American West, places like Dodge City prohibited carrying handguns in places frequented by drunk cowboys. Probably wise at the time, but more a curious anomaly today.

 

[miketx]

Kinda crazy to watch intellectually developed President speak after witnessing Trump for half a year.

He's an America hating pos.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Good responses guys thanks.

I wrote a long response but I have a habit of doing that, so I will just be quick and state, I understand why people support the 2nd Amendment, and why there is logic to support even autos. I will say, if somehow the government became tyrannic, the imbalance in weapons would be massive, and even 1000 automatic weapons wouldn't tip the scale. From missiles, to advanced technology and satellite use etc. Any attempts to try and balance the battle purely from a military standpoint, would require theft from the government and/or external government assistance (as the French once did to help America fight the British). So, I think support for automatics and the like to fight a tyrannic government isn't a realistic benefit/reason.

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding. I wish this narrative would receive more airtime in Canada and in other outlets. At the same time, I don't think the outrage against autos and modifiers is misplaced.

 

[miketx]

Good responses guys thanks.

I wrote a long response but I have a habit of doing that, so I will just be quick and state, I understand why people support the 2nd Amendment, and why there is logic to support even autos. I will say, if somehow the government became tyrannic, the imbalance in weapons would be massive, and even 1000 automatic weapons wouldn't tip the scale. From missiles, to advanced technology and satellite use etc. Any attempts to try and balance the battle purely from a military standpoint, would require theft from the government and/or external government assistance (as the French once did to help America fight the British).

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding. I wish this narrative would receive more airtime in Canada and in other outlets. At the same time, I don't think the outrage against autos and modifiers is misplaced.

The outrage is coming from all sorts, from commie rights hating libs, to whiny cry baby media fed morons. No law would have stopped this guy. It's already against the law to murder someone, so why didn't that stop him?

 

[rightwinger]

<wink> <wink>

This is not legally considered an automatic weapon.....but it can fire at 600 rounds per minute

If that bothers you then you need to take it up with the BATF as they have written very detailed letters explaining why these devices like slide fire and such are legal. Many of those letters were written by the BATT under the dominion of half black jesus. Where was your outrage then? Or 30 years before?

By all means...lets have BATF ban them and prosecute those who possess them

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government. GB tried to confiscate everyones weapons before our Revolution.


If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

We didn't stop the sale of booze, drugs, prostitution....

What utter nonsense.

The Founding Fathers when creating a new government did not envision people defending themselves against the government they were creating.

The 2nd amendment was written so states could form militias to defend themselves against Indians and foreign invasions. It was written before the U.S. had a standing army. The 2nd amendment is now obsolete and is being misinterpreted by a bunch of guntards.

You obviously have never read the Declaration of Independence, and your historical knowledge is basically non-existent.

Why were the battles of Lexington and Concord fought? The British government was intent on seizing weapons so that the colonists would have no recourse other than to submit to tyranny.

 

[bendog]

Good responses guys thanks.

I wrote a long response but I have a habit of doing that, so I will just be quick and state, I understand why people support the 2nd Amendment, and why there is logic to support even autos. I will say, if somehow the government became tyrannic, the imbalance in weapons would be massive, and even 1000 automatic weapons wouldn't tip the scale. From missiles, to advanced technology and satellite use etc. Any attempts to try and balance the battle purely from a military standpoint, would require theft from the government and/or external government assistance (as the French once did to help America fight the British). So, I think support for automatics and the like to fight a tyrannic government isn't a realistic benefit/reason.

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding. I wish this narrative would receive more airtime in Canada and in other outlets. At the same time, I don't think the outrage against autos and modifiers is misplaced.

Ah still cain't unnerstan how we was 0 fer 2 gainst y'all even before we started losin' wars. (-:

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Right to Bear Arms is the reason why America has never had a dictatorship

 

[BlindBoo]

When the Bill of Rights was written the States Militia's were the first line of defense against foreign invaders. They were under the President. They were made up a citizens who were mostly White male property owners. I'm sure they never dreamed of the weapons we have available to all of us now.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Good responses guys thanks.

I wrote a long response but I have a habit of doing that, so I will just be quick and state, I understand why people support the 2nd Amendment, and why there is logic to support even autos. I will say, if somehow the government became tyrannic, the imbalance in weapons would be massive, and even 1000 automatic weapons wouldn't tip the scale. From missiles, to advanced technology and satellite use etc. Any attempts to try and balance the battle purely from a military standpoint, would require theft from the government and/or external government assistance (as the French once did to help America fight the British). So, I think support for automatics and the like to fight a tyrannic government isn't a realistic benefit/reason.

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding. I wish this narrative would receive more airtime in Canada and in other outlets. At the same time, I don't think the outrage against autos and modifiers is misplaced.

Imaginary Courage

Pathetic bootlicking doormats who won't stand up to their bosses at work like to fantasize that they can overthrow the government. They know they are economic cowards; they desperately need to think they are revolutionary heroes---"Just you wait and see what I will do!"

 

[Crixus]

<wink> <wink>

This is not legally considered an automatic weapon.....but it can fire at 600 rounds per minute

If that bothers you then you need to take it up with the BATF as they have written very detailed letters explaining why these devices like slide fire and such are legal. Many of those letters were written by the BATT under the dominion of half black jesus. Where was your outrage then? Or 30 years before?

By all means...lets have BATF ban them and prosecute those who possess them

Let me get this straight. Ban the devices that they agency wrote multi page explanations on why these devices ARE NOT machine guns when installed, then prosecute anyone who posses them? Is that even possible, and had it been the law would it have even helped ? Would it have been less horrible had the guy been perched up there with a bolt gun and a back pack full of ammo ? Say he had no guns at all and just used the bomb stuff instead, would that have been less tragic ?

 

[iceberg]

When the Bill of Rights was written the States Militia's were the first line of defense against foreign invaders. They were under the President. They were made up a citizens who were mostly White male property owners. I'm sure they never dreamed of the weapons we have available to all of us now.

read this on facebook and thought it was interesting.

If you are going to start calling for more gun control and use the 2nd Amendment in your argument, citing that the founding fathers had a single shot musket in mind when they wrote it, then I’m calling to remove your right to protest as the founding fathers never had blocking highways, rioting, looting, BLM, Antifa, NFL or “shutting this shit down” in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendment.

he's got a point. the constitution as written is meant to be "timeless" which is why, when treated as such, it lasts as long as it does. these days everyone wants it to mean only what they feel it should, all else are wrong. queue fighting. if it can be expanded to include these areas as methods of today to show your feelings about things, then it can be for guns, and all else, as well.

unless you hate guns, then you want to limit what you don't like, expand what you do. human nature but self serving in a cooperative environment.

 

[BlindBoo]

When the Bill of Rights was written the States Militia's were the first line of defense against foreign invaders. They were under the President. They were made up a citizens who were mostly White male property owners. I'm sure they never dreamed of the weapons we have available to all of us now.

read this on facebook and thought it was interesting.

If you are going to start calling for more gun control and use the 2nd Amendment in your argument, citing that the founding fathers had a single shot musket in mind when they wrote it, then I’m calling to remove your right to protest as the founding fathers never had blocking highways, rioting, looting, BLM, Antifa, NFL or “shutting this shit down” in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendment.

he's got a point. the constitution as written is meant to be "timeless" which is why, when treated as such, it lasts as long as it does. these days everyone wants it to mean only what they feel it should, all else are wrong. queue fighting. if it can be expanded to include these areas as methods of today to show your feelings about things, then it can be for guns, and all else, as well.

unless you hate guns, then you want to limit what you don't like, expand what you do. human nature but self serving in a cooperative environment.

Blocking Highways, looting and rioting are illegal and not expressions of Free Speech. The Constitution has been amended from it's original form many times. IMO banning guns is unconstitutional. But the point I was making is that it was not an amendment to give the people the weapons needed for armed insurrection against the government but as protection from the various states taking the Minute-mens' (militias) weapons as they were our first line of defense against a foreign invasion.

 

[iceberg]

When the Bill of Rights was written the States Militia's were the first line of defense against foreign invaders. They were under the President. They were made up a citizens who were mostly White male property owners. I'm sure they never dreamed of the weapons we have available to all of us now.

read this on facebook and thought it was interesting.

If you are going to start calling for more gun control and use the 2nd Amendment in your argument, citing that the founding fathers had a single shot musket in mind when they wrote it, then I’m calling to remove your right to protest as the founding fathers never had blocking highways, rioting, looting, BLM, Antifa, NFL or “shutting this shit down” in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendment.

he's got a point. the constitution as written is meant to be "timeless" which is why, when treated as such, it lasts as long as it does. these days everyone wants it to mean only what they feel it should, all else are wrong. queue fighting. if it can be expanded to include these areas as methods of today to show your feelings about things, then it can be for guns, and all else, as well.

unless you hate guns, then you want to limit what you don't like, expand what you do. human nature but self serving in a cooperative environment.

Blocking Highways, looting and rioting are illegal and not expressions of Free Speech. The Constitution has been amended from it's original form many times. IMO banning guns is unconstitutional. But the point I was making is that it was not an amendment to give the people the weapons needed for armed insurrection against the government but as protection from the various states taking the Minute-mens' (militias) weapons as they were our first line of defense against a foreign invasion.

cool. i just thought it was an interesting concept at what has changed in the world around us and we can choose to have selective vision in these matters. (certainly myself included)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why?

I'm just messing.

Y'all were just talking past each other. That's all.

600 rounds per minute is the rate of fire. I think they were confused by your magazine capacity statement. They were correct to call it rounds per minute.

For the record, I have never heard of a hi-cap magazine holding 600 rounds. I would love to see someone shoulder such a weapon, because the magazine would weigh at least twice as much as the weapon itself.

Furthermore, with the exception of gatlin-style mini-guns with multiple, spinning barrels, I have never seen a gun run through more than 300 rounds at a time without doing serious damage to the barrel, to the point where the gun fails (or catches on fire).

Here's what it does to an AK:


Magazine capacity is one of the dumbest arguments ever. It may increase actual rate of fire (fewer reloads), but fewer reloads has very little impact on effectiveness. Sustained firing on automatic is highly inaccurate. You end up fighting to keep the gun down, even with the best upward flash deflector, you will still struggle to keep fire on target. In fact, three round bursts are much more effective.