The 2nd amendment discussion is coming

[Kulindahr]

kuli, i was being sarcastic

what JB3 says below

Most of this is conjecture. I'd assume that the British would have aimed first for the north, since it is RIGHT along the Canadian border, but that's presuming it would care to retake anything while it was dealing with Napoleon. Regardless, the fate of these fictional unions don't seem, especially when you really consider all that was going against the experiment (native populations and multiple European powers were imposing enough) had they, even just split in two, quarreled as separate political entities.

I used to do wargaming. When we did the scenario where the South and North started out divided, the British wiped the mat with them. When we did the scenario where they split after independence, the southern strategy worked best -- the North would have had to watch two borders, which up until about 1830 they couldn't pull off very well.

Just for kicks, we set it up with the Iroquois as their own nation allied with the North, which gave the North a better chance.

But in any of them, random events played a big part; no one could count on winning -- which is why it made a fun thing to game. The big thing, though, was British command of the seas; they could have had an army in Canada, threatening, an army in Virginia, threatening, and kept one on a fleet that could strike anywhere -- New Orleans was always an attractive target.

Anyway, without an alternate universe or five.....

 

[White Eagle]

So you're going to argue with the Founding Fathers?

If I had my files, I'd list quotes. But it was plain that to them "arms" meant the best thing an army might have.

Now Kuli, I knew you would do this. My post sarcastic.
You and I have had many discussions about the 2nd amendment. You know my stance on auto/semiauto matic weponry. But in the end I always agree with you. You have convinced me with all those quotes that the 2nd amendment stands as written.

 

[White Eagle]

Okay my impression is that only Crocodile Dundee ever said "Crikey."

And in what I wrote, you can translate it to Americanian if you want to, but I thought it was pretty much already standard English. Nothing especially stands out as being from Canuckistan. Eh?

Sorry, I'm gonna quit trying to put some levity in this thread. Crikey is something I picked up from some Aussie a while back, and I liked it. My mention of Kuli's wrath is something I knew he would pick up on. I knew when I wrote it I would have to explain why I said it.
What you wrote was readable, but I did find an English to American dictionary and thought I'd throw it in. It's funny that someone had to write it.
So, My apologies to all.

 

[bankside]

Because he's trying to impugn the integrity and ideas of the founders, and trying to marginalize what they achieved because he disagrees with the second amendment.

No, not impugn. I'm offering your country a reminder of what it has lost in a sea of tea party nonsense: the knowledge that the founding fathers were just men. Men? We have those sorts of beings even in the present day. We know they sometimes err. Interestingly, the founding fathers knew they would sometimes err, and for that reason they created provisions for amending the constitution. And with the notion that a human being can be so only three fifths of the way, we have proof that they made ugly compromises that today's men of character would not abide.

I'm trying to restore in your minds the seemingly lost knowledge that the constitution is not sacrosanct, it is merely important. And none of you would be behaving treasonously to amend it for the better.

because those old racist white guys and their ideas are obsolete

Yes. Many of them were racist, and some of their ideas are obsolete. Some of those ideas have already been ruled obsolete and brushed aside by the hand of history. Do you not think that process will continue?

 

[JB3]

No, not impugn. I'm offering your country a reminder of what it has lost in a sea of tea party nonsense: the knowledge that the founding fathers were just men. Men? We have those sorts of beings even in the present day. We know they sometimes err. Interestingly, the founding fathers knew they would sometimes err, and for that reason they created provisions for amending the constitution. And with the notion that a human being can be so only three fifths of the way, we have proof that they made ugly compromises that today's men of character would not abide.

I'm trying to restore in your minds the seemingly lost knowledge that the constitution is not sacrosanct, it is merely important. And none of you would be behaving treasonously to amend it for the better.

You'll forgive me if I don't listen to a damn thing a canadian says about the US Constitution or the founding fathers.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

The US' problem today is that compromises, beautiful or ugly, do not occur. So we end up with a broken system that does little for the common good and benefits only those rich enough who can afford the cost of true representation. We'd be blessed if we can get a group of representatives to come up with a 3/5s-esque compromise.

Of course, a lot of people would point out that happens all of the time...

RG

 

[hotatlboi]

I'm not for restricting guns but I do think it would be prudent to go back to not allowing high capacity magazines for handguns.

No legit use of a handgun for personal defense is going to require more than 10 shots.

 

[jackoroe]

I'm not for restricting guns but I do think it would be prudent to go back to not allowing high capacity magazines for handguns.

No legit use of a handgun for personal defense is going to require more than 10 shots.

One of the unintended consequences of doing this last time, was it created a whole new genre of tiny little guns which are great for concealed carry. A 10 round magazine is just as lethal as a 15 round mag. Reloading takes under 2 seconds. So what exactly would you accomplish? Nothing. I like laws that have a useful purpose. This is a feel good law, nothing more.

 

[hotatlboi]

Reloading takes under 2 seconds.

For an experienced shooter.

So what exactly would you accomplish? Nothing.

It at least requires you to pause and lower your guard. That means that an attacker cannot mow over dozens of people as easily or quickly.

 

[DeeChai]

No legit use of a handgun for personal defense is going to require more than 10 shots.

Are you and expert on gunfighting or tactics? Can you see into the future? How do you know that 10 rounds are enough? I do not presume to tell people what is appropriate for their own personal defense because I can’t predict the future. I can’t predict when, where, how many assailants, what type of weapons they may carry, or whether or not my weapon may malfunction. Anything can happen anywhere, regardless of ones own feelings of security.

Personal defense means to stop the threat now so that I may retreat to safety. If I carry mace, that’ll only make him mad. I don’t fool around with knives or martial arts because I’m not interested in mixing it up with the bad guy and getting my skull caved in. I carry a gun because it’s a fight stopper.

I carry thirty rounds with me in two 15 round magazines. One in the gun and the other on my belt. I have two magazines just in case on fails on me. I carry 15 round magazines because I don’t know how many bad guys I may come across. Even if I put multiple rounds on a bad guy, he may not immediately go down. They may be on powerful narcotics and body armor is becoming more common.

The application of a firearm is a lot more complicated than point and shoot. Every incident is different. It may take one round to end a fight or it may take twenty rounds, no one can predict what is the minimum amount of force to end a fight.

 

[DeeChai]

For an experienced shooter.


It at least requires you to pause and lower your guard. That means that an attacker cannot mow over dozens of people as easily or quickly.

You cant legislate against crazy because crazy people do crazy things regardless. We don't know what he'd do if he didn't have that gun. I guess he could rig a bomb or plow his car into a crowd of people and get a similar effect. I know there are millions of guns and responsible gun owners in this country who do the right thing everday. They are the rule and Loughner is a rare exception. The good people use their guns every day responsibly but you'll never hear about it on the news.

 

[ndavies]

Long time lurker so excuse the no-post count. I thought I’d offer some support for the few here who believe people have the right to own guns.

I am a Constitutionalist. Call me a right wing extremist or tea partier. I won’t get offended because it’s true.

I’m also an avid gun collector and shooter. I shot competition for many years and was pretty good before ammo got expensive and was forced to quit. Now I go to the range and practice. Nothing beats hearing the steel ding at 300yds or seeing paper shredded to bits at 25yards from a barrage of 9mm.

You should try it. I promise it won’t mess up your hair or ruin your favorite loafers. You will either love it or hate it, but at least you can be a bit more informed about what you are so afraid of.

I own so many guns it’d make any true moonbat liberal run away screaming bloody murder if they saw my safes and ammo piles. I also have 4 and counting (building two more right now) evil black kitten killing AR15’s. That’s assault rifles to you people outside the gun community. Oh and AK47’s, an Uzi, big guns, little guns, and everything in between. As for high capacity magazines? Oh yea, boy do I have them. Piles of them. If a gun can take a 15+ round mag, then that’s what I put in it unless it’s a low capacity gun to begin with.

Why so much? Because I can. Because it is my hobby and my love and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

I also have a license to carry concealed in Massachusetts and several states and I carry a gun with me every day and everywhere it is legal. Criminals don’t bother with that stuff.

My whole family carries. As do pretty much all of my friends. I always feel safe knowing that my family and I are protecting themselves. I never feel scared walking into my home at night knowing that I have my Sig on my hip. That bump in the night? No problem. Grab my gun with an attached tac light and take a look. A gun is an equalizer. I don’t know how to incapacitate or kill someone 14 different ways with a paperclip but I know how to aim and double tap to the chest and one to the head. No reason for someone trying to kill me to live and sue me for damages. It has happened.

None of my guns have slaughtered anyone. (OK, maybe some of my WWII guns) I am not mentally unstable. I am just like 99.9% of gun owners out there who are responsible and respect the rights that are provided by the Second Amendment and affirmed by the SJC Heller and McDonald ruling.

Guns are here to stay people. Get over it. The best thing we as a society can do is get MORE guns in the hands of responsible people and out on the street. Imagine being a criminal and never knowing who is carrying. Would you dare make a move knowing anyone you try to mug, kill, kidnap, or rape could be carrying? Would you even attempt to break into a home at night if you knew there was a chance the owner was waiting there with a shotgun with 00 Buck pointed at your center mass?

So with that, I will leave this discussion in the capable hands of Kulindahr, BostonPirate, et al. Take it away guys. Do us gun owners proud.

Molōn labe

 

[hotatlboi]

You cant legislate against crazy because crazy people do crazy things regardless. We don't know what he'd do if he didn't have that gun. I guess he could rig a bomb or plow his car into a crowd of people and get a similar effect.

So would you be in favor of allowing any citizen to purchase an RPG?

I mean, if most people will use them wisely, why not make that legal to?

No one is saying that by making a law that makes people not crazy. What it is saying is that there is no need to have things freely available to crazy people that have no legitimate use. What legitimate use does anyone need 30 bullets in a handgun at one time for?

 

[DeeChai]

So would you be in favor of allowing any citizen to purchase an RPG?

I mean, if most people will use them wisely, why not make that legal to?

No one is saying that by making a law that makes people not crazy. What it is saying is that there is no need to have things freely available to crazy people that have no legitimate use. What legitimate use does anyone need 30 bullets in a handgun at one time for?

You focus on the the 30 round magazine aspect. In the future, if someone killed multiple people with a weapon with 10 round magazines, you will call for a ban on 10 round magazines? We label millions of law abiding gun owners because of one maniac.

 

[BostonPirate]

gun owners NEED to be responsible.

however, the constitution does not set that requirement. WHo gets to set that standard?

The birthers? the anti abortion terrorists? the new black panthers? the police? the congress??

You know the sad part is I trust the congress the least of all people on that list for making that decision.

 

[Letenant]

The basic reasoning for the 2nd amendment is that tyrants want to disarm their populations. Modern weapons may be more than ever imagined, but you cannot tell me people who used muskets for game were 'bad shots' when it came to something that took a minute plus to reload.

We are damn squeamish. This is a genie we are not likely to put back in the jar, so I would suggest we aim our thoughts on how to get the populace at large to deal with the questions more directly. Thirty years ago, drunk driving was accepted.

From the statistics, a gun in the house is less dangerous to kids than a swimming pool in the back yard. Which scares people more?

 

[Kulindahr]

From the statistics, a gun in the house is less dangerous to kids than a swimming pool in the back yard. Which scares people more?

From the statistics, in some years a gun in the house is less dangerous to kids than high school sports.

 

[Letenant]

From the statistics, in some years a gun in the house is less dangerous to kids than high school sports.

I've not looked at that one, but seems possible.

If you want to be more alarmed, look at the trend in aggrivated assaults...

 

[Kulindahr]

I've not looked at that one, but seems possible.

If you want to be more alarmed, look at the trend in aggrivated assaults...

Those are high here. A huge portion of it involves racists -- we have KKK, Aryan Nation, and Teutonic something-or-other. They attack people for having non-white girlfriends, and each other over issues I don't care to try to understand. But they avoid using firearms; if there's a crime with a gun, it's pretty certain it wasn't one of them -- why? Because they are saving the use of firearms for "The Day".