It should have been obvious from my first post that I was not one of those people. I have no desire to "infiltrate" you. And I make no pretense whatsoever: I am pretty damn ignorant when it comes to guns.
Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?
- Thread starter timmy4
- Start date
- Status
Now, let me get political here for a moment: I predict that, in spite of the polls and much of the media supporting some of my ideas, nothing is actually going to happen. There are 4 main reasons for this:
1. The Democrats in Congress, I believe, are for the most part uncomfortable with this issue. They know their constituents are more pro-gun than Obama is, especially in rural states. They are using this issue to "get" Republicans rather than to really accomplish anything.
2. Tactically, it was a huge mistake to go with one "omnibus" bill that contains several gun control measures. While the public is strongly for ending the loophole, for instance, they are not for a new AWB ban. Having a large bill gives politicians cover that they would not have if there were several bills each dealing with a different topic.
3. Eventually, all bills have to go through the House of Representatives, which as we all know is controlled by Republicans typically more conservative than in the Senate. There is no way any gun control bill gets passed.
4. Finally, and most important: those of us who are in favor of certain gun control issues care about this topic, but we don't care as much as you guys do. Simply put, you are willing to vote for or against politicians based on this one issue as your priority. For the most part, we aren't; we have other priorities. So long as this is true, it doesn't matter even if we have a majority opinion on our side; you will still win. That is the nature of pluralism.
So cheer up. Your "side" is going to be triumphant in the long run. I don't have to like that, but I recognize it as the truth.
1. The Democrats in Congress, I believe, are for the most part uncomfortable with this issue. They know their constituents are more pro-gun than Obama is, especially in rural states. They are using this issue to "get" Republicans rather than to really accomplish anything.
2. Tactically, it was a huge mistake to go with one "omnibus" bill that contains several gun control measures. While the public is strongly for ending the loophole, for instance, they are not for a new AWB ban. Having a large bill gives politicians cover that they would not have if there were several bills each dealing with a different topic.
3. Eventually, all bills have to go through the House of Representatives, which as we all know is controlled by Republicans typically more conservative than in the Senate. There is no way any gun control bill gets passed.
4. Finally, and most important: those of us who are in favor of certain gun control issues care about this topic, but we don't care as much as you guys do. Simply put, you are willing to vote for or against politicians based on this one issue as your priority. For the most part, we aren't; we have other priorities. So long as this is true, it doesn't matter even if we have a majority opinion on our side; you will still win. That is the nature of pluralism.
So cheer up. Your "side" is going to be triumphant in the long run. I don't have to like that, but I recognize it as the truth.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
Enough with the troll talk
Look, if you don't want to talk to this man, then don't talk to him.
Staff will let this continue. Exercise your debating skills or stay silent.
Next person that calls timmy a troll gets an infraction.
Now to do some housekeeping here.
Look, if you don't want to talk to this man, then don't talk to him.
Staff will let this continue. Exercise your debating skills or stay silent.
Next person that calls timmy a troll gets an infraction.
Now to do some housekeeping here.
Careful on the polls Timmy. Seems as though results are dependent on how/who/when you ask:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...un_laws_more_important_than_creating_new_laws
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...un_laws_more_important_than_creating_new_laws
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny
There are two basic problems with the "look at how many people support X" argument. First, as gearhead points out, popular support doesn't make a proposition right. Second, historically speaking, a great deal of the support for gun control has been garnered by deceiving the American Public. In the late 1980s, groups like Handgun Control, Inc., now the Brady Campaign, intentionally misled the American Public into thinking that the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban was a measure to limit access to fully-automatic weapons, when full-auto had been strictly regulated since 1934.timmy4 said:
While I was typing this, you posted something about a "loophole." I'm sure that someone has pointed this out, but there is no loophole. The "gun show loophole" is another fiction created in the late 1980s or early 1990s. There are only FFL sales and private sales. Private sales are not a loophole.
JRH6856
Member
Or a tactic. As of yesterday, there were over 20 separate gun control bills active in both the House and Senate, Except for Feinstein's, each one dealt mainly with a single infringement, some of which Feinstein apparently never thought of.
WRT "universal background checks," would Gangster Smith have to call the FBI before selling a TEC-9 or MP5 to Gangster Jones, or would they only apply when I want to give my son my shotgun?
Leaving aside the fact that such a requirement would be unenforceable without registration, shouldn't we have some data to suggest the measure would reduce illegal sales substantially before we, you know, tamper with the Bill of Rights?
Where do criminals get their guns? According to one survey of 18K inmates, only 1% are from the so-called "gun show loophole." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLLEuVwI0C4
Leaving aside the fact that such a requirement would be unenforceable without registration, shouldn't we have some data to suggest the measure would reduce illegal sales substantially before we, you know, tamper with the Bill of Rights?
Where do criminals get their guns? According to one survey of 18K inmates, only 1% are from the so-called "gun show loophole." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLLEuVwI0C4
Last edited:
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
It also happens to be a Saturday.
So what's your point about that, Johnny?
So what's your point about that, Johnny?
another problem with polls regarding guns is that non owners are pretty ignorant about guns, their functions, characteristics and the laws regarding them.
People think that full auto guns are legal, people don't realize that semi auto doesn't mean full auto. People don't realize that 30 round mags are standard capacity.
The terms Hi-Cap and Semi-auto, Assault rifle and Gun show loopholes are just phrases that sound scary and are used to promote an agenda.
People know what their freedom of speech, religion, assembly entails. Many don't know what their right to keep and bear arms means. You hardly ever see gun owners painted in positive light in the media and that makes demonization a lot easier. Those against guns want us to defend the indefensible (mass shootings, crime) because that's what they equate guns with. Those that understand their rights fight for them. It doesn't make us "gun nuts", blood thirsty or unsympathetic.
People think that full auto guns are legal, people don't realize that semi auto doesn't mean full auto. People don't realize that 30 round mags are standard capacity.
The terms Hi-Cap and Semi-auto, Assault rifle and Gun show loopholes are just phrases that sound scary and are used to promote an agenda.
People know what their freedom of speech, religion, assembly entails. Many don't know what their right to keep and bear arms means. You hardly ever see gun owners painted in positive light in the media and that makes demonization a lot easier. Those against guns want us to defend the indefensible (mass shootings, crime) because that's what they equate guns with. Those that understand their rights fight for them. It doesn't make us "gun nuts", blood thirsty or unsympathetic.
All in all it has been a pretty civil discussion. The last couple pages though are edging toward argument.
It seems to me there are several fundamental problems - first and foremost is a terrible lack of understanding of why the United States of America is the The United States of America and not 'New Briton' or 'New France' or ---.
It appears now that the discussion is at a loggerhead between logic and facts against emotions.
There probably is a way to control violent crime to some threshold level. Messing with the rights of law abiding citizens isn't it. IMHO
It seems to me there are several fundamental problems - first and foremost is a terrible lack of understanding of why the United States of America is the The United States of America and not 'New Briton' or 'New France' or ---.
It appears now that the discussion is at a loggerhead between logic and facts against emotions.
There probably is a way to control violent crime to some threshold level. Messing with the rights of law abiding citizens isn't it. IMHO
...or New York.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
Johnny Dollar said:
I'm not sure he is. We've seen those people come here before, and they behave differently.
But say he is. I've seen no chaos here. I see no one divided against the other on the issue of more gun restrictions to the point we're arguing amongst ourselves. If that's his purpose, he's failed pretty miserably.
Look, if your position isn't good enough to defend in a debate with someone opposed to it, then maybe it's not a good position. If it is a good position, perhaps you just need to get better at defending it. I seem to recall they used to teach people that in high school.
We do have a good position, and we're getting some good practice defending it. I suspect we might have need of those skills as the national debate over the proposed legislation continues.
9MMare
Member
Obviously you've never seen how fast some of us can switch out magazines. We practice it....because it can be a matter of life and death no matter what the capacity of the magazine.
But we do practice it...it is even part of some competitions. And many (most?) of us carry more than one magazine now, with our handguns. Guess we'll just have to carry more now.
And, as I always say/remind people of...it's for the fence-sitters. It doesn't matter if it's impossible to convince the individual you are conversing with. If you can thoroughly defeat their position there will be people who are listening in (or reading in), and THEY are the ones that matter. They are (often) the ones whose position and be swayed with a little knowledge and perspective.
I'm pretty sure most who carry do not carry a spare mag.
We really should...magazines are often a cause of a failure in semi autos...and a phase II malfunction clearance drill is best done with another magazine...but after spending years and years on gun forums I think most people don't carry a spare mag.
9MMare
Member
LOL, kinda like the folks that dont believe in evolution? They just ignore what doesnt fit their beliefs.
OK, gotcha. Carry on!
9MMare
Member
Switch to 1911 carry as God intended, and you'll welcome the mags to help balance things out.
9MMare
Member
What makes you think any compromise (in magazine capacity) would make any difference? How big a compromise?
The time frame and ease/speed of changing them out has been explained to you.
It's a 'feel good' measure with no basis in fact to reduce anything. Unless you can explain as asked?
mljdeckard
Member
I'm done.
You have asked, we have answered. We have been accommodating and reasonable. Some people have been suspicious, because experience has made them so. I have PERSONALLY asked you questions that you ignored.
As for whether or not we should be working hard to convince YOU PERSONALLY that we are right, well, I think there is a reasonable amount of attention that curious people deserve, and you have had far more than your fair share. Vote for whomever you want to. I seriously doubt that anything we say or do was going to change your mind anyway.
You have asked, we have answered. We have been accommodating and reasonable. Some people have been suspicious, because experience has made them so. I have PERSONALLY asked you questions that you ignored.
As for whether or not we should be working hard to convince YOU PERSONALLY that we are right, well, I think there is a reasonable amount of attention that curious people deserve, and you have had far more than your fair share. Vote for whomever you want to. I seriously doubt that anything we say or do was going to change your mind anyway.
Switch to 1911 carry as God intended, and you'll welcome the mags to help balance things out.
My perspective could be clouded from too much time on Glock Talk. The double stack capacity + magazine thickness probably leads to fewer spares being carried than a slender, lower capacity 1911
meanmrmustard
Member
Not many, but I carry AT LEAST two.
You've just gotta expand you mind, man! Like, there''s no reason to stay all twentieth-century in 1911 choices, unless, like, you want to, man!
15 rounds of 9mm in this one, and a trigger that'll make any Glock man jealous!
So, have a successfully derailed this one yet? Was looking done anyway...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked