Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

[easyg]

One of the biggest issues with mag capacity bans and self-defense.....

We must not let the anti crowd trick us in to defending our weapons and our magazines based upon self defense.
"Assault rifles" and high capacity magazines are the tools needed to overthrow a tyrannical government, not for self defense against thugs.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I'm sure there are plenty of examples like this one. But there's a big difference between "aiding" and "necessary". You guys have made, as one of your arguments, that high caliber magazines are necessary to defend against home invasion. Intuitively, I have trouble buying that. And unless you can provide real life examples to the contrary, then intuition is all I have to go on.

I still haven't seen your response to my contribution from last night.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=8690849#post8690849


So, I'll present it again:

timmy, you should realize your support to limit magazine capacity would put guys like my friend Joshua at even more of a disadvantage if he had to defend himself.

We have several thousand veterans just from the OIF and OEF wars alone who have returned home with less body parts than they deployed over there with. And people like Joshua were born, through circumstance of birth, unable to walk and with full use of only one of his arms.

How many mass public shootings have we had in the past 10 years? Use whatever criteria you want to define a mass public shooting, it won't come near the amount of crimes disabled people have experienced against them:

Disabled in the Bullseye

Disabled Americans are substantially more likely to be victims of crime than able-bodied people.
By Bob Boyd, April 14, 2011

In 2008, people with disabilities were victims of 40,000 rapes or sexual assaults, 116,000 robberies, 115,000 aggravated assaults and nearly 459,000 simple assaults. In 20 percent of these cases, the perpetrator used a weapon. People with disabilities between 12 to 24 and 35 to 49 years of age were nearly twice as likely to be targeted when compared to other people in those age groups. Females with disabilities experienced higher rates of violent crime than males with disabilities. Nearly 15 percent of those victims suspected they were targeted because of their disability.

Criminals apparently know disabled people are less likely to be able to defend themselves during a violent crime, or at least perceive them to be an easy target. The 2007 numbers add emphasis to the urgency of the situation. That year, nearly 47,000 rapes, 79,000 robberies, 114,000 aggravated assaults and 476,000 simple assaults were reported with disabled victims, who were targeted 1.5 times more often than persons without disabilities.


Official statistics may not reflect the gravity of the problem. According to a March 2000 newsletter by Dan Sorensen titled “The Invisible Victims,” people with substantial disabilities are victims of crime at a four- to 10-times higher rate than non-disabled people, a number the organization Disabled Crime Victims Assistance concurs with. Sorensen estimates approximately 5 million disabled people are victims of serious crime annually in the United States and that, “in California…only 4.5 percent of these crimes are reported to authorities.”

The ongoing epidemic of crime perpetrated against people with disabilities has remained largely unnoticed by the American people—disabled and non-disabled alike—and ignored by the media.

In the coming months, I’ll be writing a series of articles that address self-defense for the physically disabled. Topics will include awareness, mindset, coping with physical disability as it pertains to concealed carry and defensive-handgun training, things to consider when selecting a handgun for self-defense and concealed carry and more. So if you’re physically disabled, know someone who is or are concerned about an aging family member living alone, spread the word.

Having cerebral palsy since birth, I realize my disability makes me a tempting prospect for those cowardly, less productive members of our society who prey upon those they surmise are easy targets. Unlike most though, I work for Shooting Illustrated and have attended a variety of training courses. Moreover, I have firearms and I’m willing to use them if necessary.

So, tell me how it makes you feel sitting there arguing that my friend Joshua doesn't need a magazine with more than 10 rounds.

 

[9MMare]

I want to clarify something: When I wrote that I didn't buy the tyranny argument, that does not mean that I don't recognize that tyranny can't occur. You mention the Bonus Marchers, and Japanese Internment, and there are plenty of other examples in this country. (I don't think Ruby Ridge is one of them, but that's a personal opinion.)

What I don't buy is that private gun ownership deters tyranny in any way. I get that, in your opinion, that was the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (this is certainly not a universal opinion by any means) but even if it was the original intent, it no longer applies on a practical basis.

Just IMO, several people have made very compelling arguments supporting that argument....esp. since it's not even a matter of 'winning.' It's a matter of deterrance. Of the toll it would take and the likelihood that our military or civil forces could not be used wholesale against us.

It's not even about 'winning.' It's about the toll it would take on this country and what would be left afterwards. It wouldnt be worth it.

Economically...look at what the Troubles did to Ireland? Look at how the economy tanked after 9/11? The govt isnt the only one who can instill fear you know.

Look at that moron that bombed OKC? Many homeowners will resist as lawfully as possible....but it will only take a few that wont. A few incidents against govt buildings or bridges, etc.

People will stop going out, stop flying, stop paying taxes, stop going into commercial areas to shop.....

 

[Tommygunn]

The only reason I am promoting bans on high cap magazines is so that I can eventually remove all of your guns. The only reason I am promoting background checks on private sales is so I can register all guns in America for the purpose of seizing them. I don't really care about gun crime; my real goal is to do away with the Second Amendment. Why? Because me and my buddies want to impose a socialist dictatorship and we are THIS close to doing so. The only thing stopping us is private gun ownership so that has to be destroyed. Besides, everyone who owns guns is a toothless, redneck bigot married to his sister.

Is that better?

Let me provide an example from our own country to deal with, rather than worry about foreign tyrannies and socialist dictators.
During the 1960s the New York City Government planned to enact a gun registration law on certain semiauto longarms.
The typical arguments broke out, ones we have seen here in this thread and in other similar threads; the NRA side argued that registration is useless except for confiscation. The NYC administration responded they had no plans at all for confiscation, they were only doing it for "law & order" purposes.
Anyway, the law passed.
Now flash forward thirty years. Mayor David Dinkins is the mayor. A liberal, a Democrat. Arguably NOT a tyrant. History is fairly clear he never stuffed one Jew into an oven.
BUT....he did enact a law banning some of those semiautos, and because they were registered, the NYC govt. knew who had them.
Here's what happened in one instance I know about; A family living in one Manhattan apartment had registered their firearms, only to move out (to Montana, IIRC) some years later. Of course, a new family moved in and rented the apartment. The NYPD's ESU (Emergency Services Unit, effectively their SWAT team) were given the address since the "gun-owning" family there had not complied with the gun turn in Dinkins' law required.
The NYPD is apparantly unable to do what we call "police work"~~that is, determine if a family that lived there thirty years prior are still actually living there. So one morning this nongunowning family were eating breakfast when their front door tore open and the kevlar-clad subgun totting ESU guys charge in demanding "where are the guns?"
Because even thugish ESU guys are not Waffen SS or Einsatzgruppen, they did not shoot the family, they found out that they weren't actually the gun owning family their yellowing records indicated they were. So they got all redfaced and embarassed-like and withdrew.
Okay, that was a nice story. Am I claiming this as evidence of some great conspiracy or totalitarian takeover of government. Well, no, but that doesn't mean I agree with it either.
Consider that during the 1960s the then extant authority promised the registration list they wanted would never be used for confiscation. Okay, let's say that promise was made in good faith. The people issuing it genuinely planned it to be true. They did not ever plan to confiscate those guns.
But what about Mayor Dinkins' administration? They did intend and in fact did confiscate the registered guns.
Now I'm "told" there's no "slippery slope" and I'm disdained when I refuse to trust government. But if subsequent administrations can't be held to the promises of earlier ones, what worth is there in any promise any particular administration may issue?
It isn't a matter of conspiracies and evil-hearted tyrants running the Naked City into a kakistocratic bungle.
Thomas Jefferson wrote "...the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain control." I think he'd well understand what happened in New York City over the period I recounted.
Another man who knew Jefferson said "government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master, never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." That was said by George Washington, the first president of the United States of America.

Perhaps there have been countries that have been fairly free and disarmed, and armed but unfree. It takes more than simply possessing guns for a people to free themselves, it takes guts. Not a lot of people have that. North Koreans are disarmed by their totalitarian government. But I doubt shipping crates of M-16s over there would free them; the people are too overwhelmed by the process of merely surviving they will not be able to consider taking up arms even if they did have them (see Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs" for further enlightenment).
Our founders used their guns to fight off a tyranny and win their freedom. They provided us with a protection for our weapons (so long as we would honor a piece of paper or the ideals written upon it) should the need arise.
What they could not provide for us was the spirit to actually use those weapons at the right time, and the right place, after first using up every peaceful means of maintaining our liberties, or the wisdom to determine when, and they could never have promised a particular outcome should the need for our arms arise. They did only what was humanly possible for them to do.

 

[mjsdwash]

"Removing the private sales loophole should not be a question of 2nd Amendment rights one way or the other." Under the wording of the constitution, it does not say the right of the people.... shall not be infringed, except felons, and misdemeanor domestic violence convictees. The constitution pretty much says, if your free in society, you can own a gun. Therefore if someone is not in prison, he is free, and under the 2nd amendment is not required to pass a background check at all. Maybe not the way the laws are written, but it is how the constitution is written. Also the word used is infringed. Infringing includes regulation, and making people work for their rights. I guess i may be late in the conversation for this, but I hope this helps somewhere.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Economically...look at what the Troubles did to Ireland? . . .

I already pointed that little tidbit out way back on page three when he asked:

Originally Posted by timmy4
To the best of my knowledge, there is no example in modern history where privately armed citizens ever held their own against a military force.

He flat out ignored it.

He likes to use the examples of Indian Suppression - which by the way weren't quite as cleanly conquered as he thought.

In the 15 years before our War of Independence New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland and to a lessor extant the Carolinas, all fought a terribly bloody war with the Indian tribes of the region. And they were winning it. When the French capitulated the French and Indian War, many Indian tribes decided to pick up the attack again when we refused to evacuate the French forts and outposts we took on Indian lands.


Examples of actual, effective resistence have already fallen on deaf ears and blind eyes because he doesn't feel its possible.

 

[meanmrmustard]

"Removing the private sales loophole should not be a question of 2nd Amendment rights one way or the other." Under the wording of the constitution, it does not say the right of the people.... shall not be infringed, except felons, and misdemeanor domestic violence convictees. The constitution pretty much says, if your free in society, you can own a gun. Therefore if someone is not in prison, he is free, and under the 2nd amendment is not required to pass a background check at all. Maybe not the way the laws are written, but it is how the constitution is written. Also the word used is infringed. Infringing includes regulation, and making people work for their rights. I guess i may be late in the conversation for this, but I hope this helps somewhere.

Eh...no. If you have been incarcerated for felonious action, you can't vote, you can't buy a weapon at a retail store or gunshop, and you are physically free but on paper forever seen as wearing the red "F".

Felons are people, not citizens of a free state. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness doesn't have a "by any means necessary" asterisk by it.

It should be our choice to whom we sell to. Felons aren't on my list.

 

[Solo]

I'm sure there are plenty of examples like this one. But there's a big difference between "aiding" and "necessary". You guys have made, as one of your arguments, that high caliber magazines are necessary to defend against home invasion. Intuitively, I have trouble buying that. And unless you can provide real life examples to the contrary, then intuition is all I have to go on.

Phencyclidine is a great reason to own a 15 round magazine.

 

[Spats McGee]

Two issues that come to mind:

1) Mag capacity -- timmy4, you've asked us to prove that someone needed a 30-rd magazine. I will assume that you exclude military deployments from that and we're talking about home- or self-defense.

Challenge accepted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0

In the above-linked video, there are at least 3 and maybe 4 defenders, and they are quite well-armed. One of the invaders, in fact, appears to have a 30-round magazine on his rifle. I would argue that the homeowner needed a 30-rounder in this case. You could, I suppose, argue that the homeowner didn't actually "need" 30-rounds because he didn't fire all of them. Will you really claim, however, that the law-abiding homeowner should be limited to less firepower than the bad guys are carrying?

I put to you a different challenge. Find us a SD situation in which the homeowner/defender was harmed by having too much ammunition.

2) Regarding tyranny -- There's a good deal of discussion about whether or not an armed resistance in the US could actually succeed. What do the odds of success have to do with the right to own the tools to succeed? Because some part of society thinks it unlikely that an armed resistance could succeed, it should be empowered to deprive those who would try of the very tools necessary for that success? Besides, don't discount the odds of some military and police siding with the rebellion.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Look, let's not get de-railed arguing about whether felons who have served their sentence can buy a gun. Even the founding fathers and authors of the 2A discussed that they saw felons as one group of people who could be prohibited from owning guns. A few more progressive-thinking ones argued the disability need not be life-long if he proved himself to be a peaceable member of socitey again.

But even they understood removing that right was not an outrageous idea.

 

[timmy4]

I DEFINITELY do not agree with the example given of the Troubles in Ireland. That is a situation I am quite familiar with. When I have time later today, I will address it in some detail. I will also give a response regarding the disabled gentleman, and will try to respond to some other points as well.

One thing I want to make clear: some people here, including a couple of the moderators, accuse me of deliberately ignoring certain posts, facts, and questions which have been raised. That was not my intent. I'm in a rather unique situation here in that I seem to be alone in representing my own point of view, vs. dozens of you all offering arguments for an opposing point of view. Granted, that is a situation I chose by deciding to come here for the purpose of learning, debate, and discussion. But it also means that it's extremely difficult to respond to everyone. I ask for your patience; please bear with me.

 

[9MMare]

Actually with the Troubles I was thinking more of how it affected people's lives and lifestyles rather than a direct impact on the economy. Which is what similar actions to the Troubles would have here in the US. Ireland was not armed like the US so that parallel isnt there.

 

[Hacker15E]

What I DON'T want is for a private gun owner or owners to misinterpret proper government authority as tyranny.

Was the Revolutionary War fought against "proper government authority"?

All depends on whom you ask, because the King and his Army certainly believed that they had the proper government authority to administer the colonies exactly the way they were prior to 1775.

Obviously the colonists saw things differently.

 

[timmy4]

I'll do the Troubles right now.

The Irish Republican Army was a terrorist organization. No different from al-Qaida or Hamas or Hezbollah, they recognized that their goal (a re-uniting of the six counties of Ulster) with Eire was unobtainable through normal military means. So they attempted to achieve that goal through the spread of terror- the killing of innocents. In the end, they failed: Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom. (It's important to note here that the modern gains of Sinn Fein and northern Irish Catholics were accomplished through peaceful negotiations and diplomacy- particularly the efforts of Bill Clinton- and not through violent means.

Now if you guys want to argue that private gun ownership in certain countries contributes to the ability of terrorists to spread their terror, I might have to concede the point- but do you really want to make this argument?

 

[Deanimator]

I DEFINITELY do not agree with the example given of the Troubles in Ireland.

If you think that people are just going to bow down and give up their firearms, and that there would be a walkover of resisters to tyranny, I suggest you watch the movie "Michael Collins"... TWICE.

 

[Deanimator]

The Irish Republican Army was a terrorist organization.

The Germans felt the same way about the Bielski brothers.

 

[Tommygunn]

Now if you guys want to argue that private gun ownership in certain countries contributes to the ability of terrorists to spread their terror, I might have to concede the point- but do you really want to make this arument?

Don't get snarky -- I was gonna argue the proliferation of case cutters contributes to the spread of terrorists in our airplanes . . . .

 

[MovedWest]

Phencyclidine is a great reason to own a 15 round magazine.

Seriously. I know an officer who emptied a 15 round .45 ACP magazine into the chest of someone high on PCP and they kept coming.

How many rounds do I need? As many as it takes, and not one less.

-MW

 

[timmy4]

I still haven't seen your response to my contribution from last night.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=8690849#post8690849


So, I'll present it again:

timmy, you should realize your support to limit magazine capacity would put guys like my friend Joshua at even more of a disadvantage if he had to defend himself.

We have several thousand veterans just from the OIF and OEF wars alone who have returned home with less body parts than they deployed over there with. And people like Joshua were born, through circumstance of birth, unable to walk and with full use of only one of his arms.

How many mass public shootings have we had in the past 10 years? Use whatever criteria you want to define a mass public shooting, it won't come near the amount of crimes disabled people have experienced against them:

Disabled in the Bullseye




So, tell me how it makes you feel sitting there arguing that my friend Joshua doesn't need a magazine with more than 10 rounds.

With all respect to your friend Joshua:

My purpose for making high cap magazines illegal is to prevent excessive deaths in mass shooting situations. (I am now reconsidering that position, thanks in part to some of the excellent arguments made in this thread.) One of the arguments made against this limitation is that these sorts of magazines are necessary for home defense. That is an assertion on YOUR part- I don't have to prove that you're wrong; you need to prove that you're right.

Now someone referenced Jack Bauer. So I'll concede: if your friend Joshua, or you, or anyone else here ever faces a "Jack Bauer situation" in which dozens of armed combatants are seeking your death while you are racing around Los Angeles trying to find the location of a nuclear device before it explodes, then yeah, you might need high capacity magazines (along with a whole lot of other ordnance as well.) But for home invasion? I'm not convinced.

 

[timmy4]

If you think that people are just going to bow down and give up their firearms, and that there would be a walkover of resisters to tyranny, I suggest you watch the movie "Michael Collins"... TWICE.

Erin go Bragh!

The IRA of the late 1960s (when the modern Troubles began) doesn't have much to do with Michael Collins, or Eamon De Valera, or the chauffeur from Downton Abbey.

 

[danez71]

So there is 17 pages of this Anti that:

* Only chooses to answer the questions he wants to answer.
* Doesnt answer the questions he doesnt want to or cant answer.
* Repeatedly dismisses or "rejects" statements of facts that support the 2A because they dont fit his view.
* Has admitted he has a fear and a phobia of guns.

Lets take a trip down Timmy4 memory lane and look at his statements thus far.

Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

Well, because the topic is about the 2A.

Timmy makes this statement as a way to dismiss the importance and validity of the 2A.

He might as well of said "The 2A isnt valid, why do you keep using it?".

Let me be more specific: first off, I don't see where the 2nd Amendment says that guns cannot be regulated. Removing the private sales loophole should not be a question of 2nd Amendment rights one way or the other.

Youre right. Its not a question, It says 'Shall Not Infringe'.

Here's just 1 ex. Timmy. There are lots of areas this country that dont have an FFL dealer for 100 miles. That makes very tough for a lot of people to use an FFL to do private sales. That 'regulation' is a considerable infringement for a lot of people.

Timmy is trying to be dismissive of the 'not infringe' by substituting his own verbiage and then pointing out that his verbiage isnt in the Constitution.

Timmy, YOU didnt write the 2A. So stop rewording it to suit your side.

I believe in free speech, in general, but there are reasonable limitations

So if you were limited to 10 words in your vocabulary, would you be OK with that? We'll even let you keep "FIRE" as one of your words.

As I wrote earlier, I don't think it's possible to resist a modern tyrannical government with private weapons,

Really?, Have you ever heard of Syria? They're doing fairly well considering their Govt has tanks and warplanes.

Again, Timmy is totally discounting facts because they dont support his fear.


Timmy says:

You should as a private citizen be allowed to own modern day weapons- within reason.

Most modern day weapons hold more than 10 rounds. So as long as it to your personal definition of 'with-in reason' youre OK with it.



Now lets look at what/how Timmy 'reasons'.

I own no guns, and frankly they scare me. I believe in gun control.

My fear of guns is a personal phobia, but I don't want it to affect my judgment on these issues

Its too late. It has affected your judgment as evidence by you refusing to accept facts.

Timmy... not anyone else here, used the word phobia to describe his own view about guns.

From Webster:

Phobia: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation

So what Timmy wants to do is rewrite the 2A to better suit what he says is a fear and admits is a phobia.



I think you need professional help Timmy. You're wanting to take away personal freedoms and liberties of an entire country because of your self declared phobia.

Not only is that 100% selfserving, I think its about as un-American as it gets.


Its OK Timmy. Just go get some professional help and everything will be fine.

 

[Deanimator]

How many rounds do I need? As many as it takes, and not one less.

Don't you understand what the anti-gunners are saying?

You're not SUPPOSED to defend yourself, with thirty rounds or three.

If there's not a cop standing there when you're attacked, you've got it coming and should just bend over and grab your ankles.

They're nihilists suffused with schadenfreude.

 

[Spats McGee]

My purpose for making high cap magazines illegal is to prevent excessive deaths in mass shooting situations. (I am now reconsidering that position, thanks in part to some of the excellent arguments made in this thread.) One of the arguments made against this limitation is that these sorts of magazines are necessary for home defense. That is an assertion on YOUR part- I don't have to prove that you're wrong; you need to prove that you're right.

timmy4, I haven't read this whole thread, but I would contend the opposite of the underlined part. As the law currently stands, gun owners have an established right to own 30-round magazines. There is a big push to change that law. I would suggest to the challengers that the burden rests on them to show that society's interest in limiting magazine capacity outweighs gun owners' interests in owning them.

 

[timmy4]

Gotta run again! Will post later.

 

[Deanimator]

The IRA of the late 1960s (when the modern Troubles began) doesn't have much to do with Michael Collins, or Eamon De Valera, or the chauffeur from Downton Abbey.

...which has nothing to do with the situation referenced.

Changing the subject doesn't change the facts.