Learning the wrong lesson. Gun Control.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I could misapply the famous Ben Franklin quote here, but why? Let’s get to dealing with truth.

There were several reasons why the Second Amendment was passed. People tend to fixate on one, or another, of the reasons. But as I said above, we are dealing with truth. The Truth is that the Founders wanted to insure that this nation could never be invaded by a foreign power. They had just won a war where the Militia, that is to say the citizens who took up personal arms to fight the enemy, had played a major part. So yes, the idea that an armed population would be difficult to defeat was a part of the calculation.

But there is more. The Founders also knew that man was capable of a lot of things, good and bad. They knew that the Kings of Europe got power by subjugation of the population. An armed population would insure that the American Government would never be able to subjugate the citizens.

Yes, there is even more. The Founders also realized that there would be dangers in the frontiers, where threats to survival existed, in two legged, and four legged form.

I could type for a hour giving you all the various reasons that the Second Amendment was proposed, approved, and ratified. But here is another truth. None of those reasons matter to the anti gun people.

This is where your Patriotism comes into question. The desire to Support and Defend the Constitution, not just parts of it, but all of it. It is my almost certainly arrogant opinion that supposed Christians who attack someone claiming that God hates this, or that, from the Bible, are not truly Christian. They have to deal with the entire Bible, not just the portion they are quoting. They have to understand the message behind the Bible, and the lessons of God’s love, and His desires. They miss that message when they pick one small phrase out of a billion and run with it.

There was an episode of Major Dad that comes to mind. The High School of his oldest Step Daughter had established a Dress Code. The Daughter wrote an article for the School Newspaper critical of the policy. Major Dad went in to meet with the Teacher and discuss the article. The teacher asked several questions, and the Marine Major agreed that rules mattered, and it was incumbent upon people to obey the rules, and dress codes mattered. Then the Teacher said. “So I can see you agree that this article should not be published.” To this the Major said No Ma’am. He explained that somewhere in the school was a Civics Textbook, and in the book was the First Amendment, including Freedom of the press. He had sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution. All of it. Including the right of the press to write articles that were controversial.

That is my feelings towards the Constitution. I believe it all matters. Not just a bit here, or there. But every single line, and every single right. Even if the person using the right, or claiming it, is someone I disagree with. It does not matter. The individual, or the event, is not, and never can be, greater than the right for the future. No matter how horrific the act might be, the larger question, the Constitution, must endure.

So those who say they Love America, but hate the Second Amendment, and try to find ways to chip away at it, do not love this nation. Limiting rights is not the American way. It is not the purpose of the Constitution. It is not the reason the document has soul. It is our dedication to those rights that determines the future. Because Democracy is not what we have. Democracy is where a group votes to take from the individual. We have a Republic. That is where the rights of the Individual, matter more than the desires of the group. The right of the individual to denounce the Government they disapprove of, is sacrosanct. It is sacred. It must be defended by the majority, even if, especially if, they disagree with what the individual is saying.

The same is true of the Second Amendment. If you enjoy your rights, you must be willing to defend the rights of the people you disagree with. When I hear someone saying something that I disagree with, or is insulting. The first thing I think is Thank God for the First Amendment. When I hear that someone has bought a gun, I think Thank God for the Second Amendment. When a Judge throws out Evidence that is gotten illegally, and a criminal walks free. I think Thank God. Because those rights are being eroded far too fast now. And we need to push back, or none of us will have any rights at all. And that will be the death of America.

This is truly ignorant, childish, and ridiculous.

It's also fundamentally wrong and fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So do you believe all people should have military weapons, like the AR 15. You talk about the Constitution, so people in schools and churches can be fearful of their life is Constitutional , and do you believe in freedom of the press as well.

There needs to be some changes to the constitution, you are talking 2.5 centuries here.

Keep the bible out of it, we have Separation of Church and State AKA the Age of Enlightenment.

I see the the preface of truth skipped right past you.

The Biblical Reference was one showing not that people had a right to defend themselves, or arm themselves, but how people miss the big picture focusing on one small part. That this simple explanation was missed is not surprising. Honestly, it was put there as a landmine, knowing that any mention of anything religious would set off some people. You saw the mine, and jumped on it with both feet, unable to resist the temptation.

Let’s deal with truth. Assault with a deadly weapon. 9 Things You May Not Know About "Assault With A Deadly Weapon" | Penal Code 245(a)(1) PC

So it need not be a gun. It need not be a stick, knife, broken glass. Anything. It could be your bare hands or feet. The charge is dependent upon the violence, the ferocity of the attack, and the damage sustained, or that could be reasonably assumed to have been endured by the victim.

It is not merely a gun. A gun is a tool. If my thumb is smashed while holding a nail for a neighbor to hit, is it the fault of the hammer, or the person wielding it? If I am blinded by a man with a blowtorch, is it the fault of the torch, or the man holding the torch?

A firearm is a tool. An inanimate object that is incapable of choosing good or evil. It is without a doubt blameless in any action. Even if the weapon is manufactured in such a way that the faults cause a catastrophic failure, and injury. It is not the fault of the weapon in question. It is the fault of people, first, last, and always.

Let’s say that you are sweeping out a stable. A large firecracker lands at your feet with the fuse smoldering. You grab it and throw it out the window in the few seconds you have to react. The firework explodes, and harms a child. Is it your fault the child got hurt? Or is the the fault of the firework? Or is it the fault of the person who initiated the action? I would argue it is the fault of the person who lit the firework, and threw it at your feet. Your actions, getting the firework out of the stable, to avoid damage and injury inside, was reasonable. Even if I did not like you, I would argue it.

What is interesting is this. We don’t want to blame those who do the terrible deeds. We want to blame an inanimate object. These are the gun laws in New Zealand today.

Gun laws in New Zealand - Wikipedia

It is practically the list of things that people, like you, claim we must do to limit or at least reduce if not eliminate gun crime. Yet, it did not do any of what we are promised will happen if we sacrifice our rights.

Would you deal in something you care about to get rid of something you detest? Would you trade a Woman’s right to choose for the abolition of firearms? Would you trade Free Press for the chance to get rid of some News Organization you detest? You argue no, but your actions say you would sacrifice all of them, for your desired outcome. Damn the consequences.

People do not have a right to live without fear. Everyone is afraid of something. Men are afraid to commit, women are afraid to be hurt emotionally. People are afraid of flying. Does that mean we should abolish airplanes? Some nuts are afraid of Governent Mind Control experiments. Your fear is not my fault, nor my problem. Supposedly fear of different people motivated the moron in New Zealand. Is his fear any more or less valid than yours? Is it more or less reasonable than yours?

Your fear is your problem. When you act on them, then it becomes all our problems.

So what are you willing to give up to get rid of guns? Would you sacrifice a woman’s right to choose? Would that be a good deal? Or is limiting the right to choose a crime against humanity?

When you feel as passionately about all the rights, as you do one, then you will be worthy of the title American. Until then, you may use it, but you don’t deserve it.

Nonsense.

 

[SavannahMann]

I've fired every thing from a .22 pistol to a heavy machine gun you people do not know what the fuck your talking about. You want to ban shit because of cosmetics.

If you want to pretend a large removable magazine on a semi automatic is inconsequential, well, that shows you know shit about firearms.

Well in New Zealand, the law is that your magazines may only hold seven rounds. Less than the Ten that gun control advocates say is more than enough. How did that law work out?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have -- I took one in for my science fair project my junior year.

Ah, before 1990, right?

1986, I believe.

Cool! Before my time, but I'd love to have seen it.

It was a carbine, which as pretty rare in those days. 6 position stock. Colt, of course.

Nice. What did you make on the project?

Ballistics - trajectory and penetration.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I could misapply the famous Ben Franklin quote here, but why? Let’s get to dealing with truth.

There were several reasons why the Second Amendment was passed. People tend to fixate on one, or another, of the reasons. But as I said above, we are dealing with truth. The Truth is that the Founders wanted to insure that this nation could never be invaded by a foreign power. They had just won a war where the Militia, that is to say the citizens who took up personal arms to fight the enemy, had played a major part. So yes, the idea that an armed population would be difficult to defeat was a part of the calculation.

But there is more. The Founders also knew that man was capable of a lot of things, good and bad. They knew that the Kings of Europe got power by subjugation of the population. An armed population would insure that the American Government would never be able to subjugate the citizens.

Yes, there is even more. The Founders also realized that there would be dangers in the frontiers, where threats to survival existed, in two legged, and four legged form.

I could type for a hour giving you all the various reasons that the Second Amendment was proposed, approved, and ratified. But here is another truth. None of those reasons matter to the anti gun people.

This is where your Patriotism comes into question. The desire to Support and Defend the Constitution, not just parts of it, but all of it. It is my almost certainly arrogant opinion that supposed Christians who attack someone claiming that God hates this, or that, from the Bible, are not truly Christian. They have to deal with the entire Bible, not just the portion they are quoting. They have to understand the message behind the Bible, and the lessons of God’s love, and His desires. They miss that message when they pick one small phrase out of a billion and run with it.

There was an episode of Major Dad that comes to mind. The High School of his oldest Step Daughter had established a Dress Code. The Daughter wrote an article for the School Newspaper critical of the policy. Major Dad went in to meet with the Teacher and discuss the article. The teacher asked several questions, and the Marine Major agreed that rules mattered, and it was incumbent upon people to obey the rules, and dress codes mattered. Then the Teacher said. “So I can see you agree that this article should not be published.” To this the Major said No Ma’am. He explained that somewhere in the school was a Civics Textbook, and in the book was the First Amendment, including Freedom of the press. He had sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution. All of it. Including the right of the press to write articles that were controversial.

That is my feelings towards the Constitution. I believe it all matters. Not just a bit here, or there. But every single line, and every single right. Even if the person using the right, or claiming it, is someone I disagree with. It does not matter. The individual, or the event, is not, and never can be, greater than the right for the future. No matter how horrific the act might be, the larger question, the Constitution, must endure.

So those who say they Love America, but hate the Second Amendment, and try to find ways to chip away at it, do not love this nation. Limiting rights is not the American way. It is not the purpose of the Constitution. It is not the reason the document has soul. It is our dedication to those rights that determines the future. Because Democracy is not what we have. Democracy is where a group votes to take from the individual. We have a Republic. That is where the rights of the Individual, matter more than the desires of the group. The right of the individual to denounce the Government they disapprove of, is sacrosanct. It is sacred. It must be defended by the majority, even if, especially if, they disagree with what the individual is saying.

The same is true of the Second Amendment. If you enjoy your rights, you must be willing to defend the rights of the people you disagree with. When I hear someone saying something that I disagree with, or is insulting. The first thing I think is Thank God for the First Amendment. When I hear that someone has bought a gun, I think Thank God for the Second Amendment. When a Judge throws out Evidence that is gotten illegally, and a criminal walks free. I think Thank God. Because those rights are being eroded far too fast now. And we need to push back, or none of us will have any rights at all. And that will be the death of America.

This is truly ignorant, childish, and ridiculous.
It's also fundamentally wrong and fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Nonsense

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So really, STFU. We've heard it overt & over & over & over. We know what an AR15 is.

Which of these in an AR15?

View attachment 250872

What's even funnier is that if you take off the pistol grip no state that bans assault rifles prohibits the sale of that very same gun

Correct.
CA compliant, detachable magazine AR:

View attachment 250874

With the little recessed button for a mag release that has an easy work around.

 

[SavannahMann]

They are as rifles of any kind are used in about 2% of all murders so semiautomatic rifles are not the problem

What a steaming pile of shit. They were quite a problem in Christchurch. You guys are so in denial you might as well build pyramids.

So the problem is not the 98% of the murders, it is the scary rifle used in 2% of the murders? Ok. So answer me this. What are you willing to trade to get rid of Scary rifles? And would you ban all semi automatic rifles, or only ones with a detachable magazine?

 

[SavannahMann]

They are as rifles of any kind are used in about 2% of all murders so semiautomatic rifles are not the problem

Fifty dead. About as many gun homicides in this one incident in New Zealand than in all of 2009 to 2015 combined (51).

But "semiautomatic rifles are not the problem".

There is no way on earth to excuse the gun nutters' imbecility. There just isn't.

I read the New Zealand gun laws. I wondered why he didn’t use a Shotgun, assuming he was in compliance with the 7 round limit on magazines for rifles. Because a shotgun would have been more effective, given the round limitation, especially if using buckshot. And with the new “exploding rounds” he could have blown open any doors that might have been closed on him.

Gun laws in New Zealand - Wikipedia

The Gun Laws in New Zealand are even more restrictive than the Brady Laws that were passed in the US, and yet a madman violated many laws to do what he did.

 

[SavannahMann]

So do you believe all people should have military weapons, like the AR 15. You talk about the Constitution, so people in schools and churches can be fearful of their life is Constitutional , and do you believe in freedom of the press as well.

There needs to be some changes to the constitution, you are talking 2.5 centuries here.

Keep the bible out of it, we have Separation of Church and State AKA the Age of Enlightenment.

The AR-15 is not a military weapon you loon its functionally no different than a semi-automatic .227 hunting rifle. Its like arguing with a brick with you people. You will not educate yourself on firearms and continuously make the same stupid ass comments.

And it's proven to be capable of killing 50+ people really quickly. It is a mass killing weapon, should not be legal.

If he had used a pump action shotgun, a better choice in the environment he was going into, then would you demand pump action shotguns be banned?

 

[M14 Shooter]

They are as rifles of any kind are used in about 2% of all murders so semiautomatic rifles are not the problem

What a steaming pile of shit. They were quite a problem in Christchurch. You guys are so in denial you might as well build pyramids.

So the problem is not the 98% of the murders, it is the scary rifle used in 2% of the murders?

On average, 1982-2018, around 10 people are killed per year with an 'assault weapon' in a mass shooting.
Not all of these 'assault weapons' are AR15s.

 

[SavannahMann]

Our Founding Fathers wanted a republic, not a democracy

I see you don't bother much with dictionaries.

I see you did not attend Civics Class.

Democracy vs Republic - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

In a Democracy, the majority could vote away the right to own firearms. There would be no prohibition against this. It is majority rule. They could also vote to limit the rights of minorities, because again, a Democracy is Mob Rule.

A Republic means that there are absolute rules that protect the individuals, and especially the minorities, from such abuse by the Mob. I can’t vote to make Liberal Speech illegal, the Liberals are protected by the First Amendment just as I am. I can’t vote to eliminate minorities rights under the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment. They are absolutely protected by those rights, just as I am.

You want a Democracy for your opponents, the ability to take away their rights, while insisting that only your rights matter. That is a mob rule mentality, and the antithesis of what our Nation is.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Good. You approve. Help me out. Which of these is an assault weapon that should be banned?

Who gives a fuck about your semantic games? Semi automatics that can take large magazines are running out of time here.

Unsupportable nonsense. They will never be banned, and no one will attempt confiscation.

Idk about all that. They're already doing it in CA and a couple other places, too.
This is why no one should vote for Democrats.

How to Avoid Gun Confiscation in California - AllOutdoor.com

Maryland Red Flag Gun Confiscation Order Ends with Dead Gun Owner

East German-Style Gun Confiscation Orders ("Red-Flag Laws") Coming to Wisconsin

CA Broadens Gun Confiscation Laws to Include Ammunition

 

[SavannahMann]

Good. You approve. Help me out. Which of these is an assault weapon that should be banned?

Who gives a fuck about your semantic games? Semi automatics that can take large magazines are running out of time here. I approve.

So you don’t know anything about the weapons in question. You don’t know anything about the way they work, or how to do anything but object to them. You claim it is semantic games. It is said that the Devil is in the details. So it is the details that matter when discussing this, or any issue isn’t it?

Your ignorance is honestly not surprising, I am far too accustomed to someone who knows next to nothing, being one of the loudest voices objecting to anything.

 

[cnm]

You said a mouthful when you say "I approve".....Clearly, you approve of tyranny and Fascism. That, or you're simply too much of an indoctrinated imbecile to understand how things work.

Or maybe I don't like 50 odd New Zealanders shot in a short space of time by a crazed Australian. But I repeat myself.

 

[cnm]

So you don’t know anything about the weapons in question.

Your smugness is exceeded only by your inability to parse large capacity detachable magazines.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you don’t know anything about the weapons in question.

Your smugness is exceeded only by your inability to parse large capacity detachable magazines.

Your response does nothing to diminish the fact you argue from ignorance.

 

[cnm]

That being said, the AR-15 is NOT A MILTIARY WEAPON. No militaries in the world use the AR-15. It is a common semi auto firearm like thousands of others.

With a large capacity detachable magazine, used in many mass shootings because of that feature.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That being said, the AR-15 is NOT A MILTIARY WEAPON. No militaries in the world use the AR-15. It is a common semi auto firearm like thousands of others.

With a large capacity detachable magazine, used in many mass shootings because of that feature.

Nothing here addresses what he said.
Must be because you know he's right.

 

[cnm]

Your response does nothing to diminish the fact you argue from ignorance.

The refuge of the semantic game player. The only defence left for these weapons.

 

[cnm]

Nothing here addresses what he said.
Must be because you know he's right.

As one poster here put it, magazines don't kill. You guys should erect a few pyramids, you're on the right river.