funhusker Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 Why is it that sane, rational people who think we don't need guns have to be labeled "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever other dismissive name comes to mind? Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society? I understand I'm late to this party. Yes they do. They have a place in civilized society because not everyone is civilized. Like it or not, that's a fact. The gun is the great equalizer. It puts a 70 yr old man on equal footing with a 19 yr old gang banger. It puts a 120 lb woman on equal footing with a 200 lb rapist. I have a concealed handgun permit and I don't step outside my front door w/o packing heat. Why? Because there is evil in this world and the national average response time to a 911 call is something like 23 minutes. On top of that the police are not required to protect any of us. I choose to carry to protect my wife and daughters. It would be extremely distasteful to have to pull my weapon and use it on another human being but I refuse to let my family or myself be helpless victims. Solid points. But how would your desire and ability to protect your family be taken away by any of the following, assuming you are able to pass a background check? -Limit on rounds fired per second -Limits on magazine capacity -Background checks for every gun purchase I enjoy shooting. I don't ever want people unable to protect their families, including my own. But there are some simple things that can be done that won't restrict our rights, and if they save only ONE life, they would be worth it. Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 Why is it that sane, rational people who think we don't need guns have to be labeled "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever other dismissive name comes to mind? Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society? I understand I'm late to this party. Yes they do. They have a place in civilized society because not everyone is civilized. Like it or not, that's a fact. The gun is the great equalizer. It puts a 70 yr old man on equal footing with a 19 yr old gang banger. It puts a 120 lb woman on equal footing with a 200 lb rapist. I have a concealed handgun permit and I don't step outside my front door w/o packing heat. Why? Because there is evil in this world and the national average response time to a 911 call is something like 23 minutes. On top of that the police are not required to protect any of us. I choose to carry to protect my wife and daughters. It would be extremely distasteful to have to pull my weapon and use it on another human being but I refuse to let my family or myself be helpless victims. Solid points. But how would your desire and ability to protect your family be taken away by any of the following, assuming you are able to pass a background check? -Limit on rounds fired per second -Limits on magazine capacity -Background checks for every gun purchase I enjoy shooting. I don't ever want people unable to protect their families, including my own. But there are some simple things that can be done that won't restrict our rights, and if they save only ONE life, they would be worth it. The push for stricter background checks should probably go through as long as it is founded on common sense, but limiting the size of the magazine and shots per second are unnecessary imo and will have zero positive effect. 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 Huskershark-- What would the negative effect of limitations on shots per second and magazine capacity have? I don't want to see "single shot" by any means, but a capacity of 10 (pulled that number out of my butt) seems like plenty of chances to scare off an burglar. Link to comment
huKSer Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 Huskershark-- What would the negative effect of limitations on shots per second and magazine capacity have? I don't want to see "single shot" by any means, but a capacity of 10 (pulled that number out of my butt) seems like plenty of chances to scare off an burglar. How about a magazine of 10-20 on "assault type" weapons and a timer that locks the spent magazine to the gun for 2-3 minutes? If there is a mass shooting the time gives people a chance to run to safety, or I would hope, beat the sh#t out of the shooter. If you have more than one weapon to cover the gap, then automatic summary execution when captured. Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 Huskershark-- What would the negative effect of limitations on shots per second and magazine capacity have? I don't want to see "single shot" by any means, but a capacity of 10 (pulled that number out of my butt) seems like plenty of chances to scare off an burglar. How about a magazine of 10-20 on "assault type" weapons and a timer that locks the spent magazine to the gun for 2-3 minutes? If there is a mass shooting the time gives people a chance to run to safety, or I would hope, beat the sh#t out of the shooter. If you have more than one weapon to cover the gap, then automatic summary execution when captured. The timer on an expired clip seems like a decent idea. Also seems like something that would be easy to override for anyone with Ballistics knowledge. In which case would basically only affect people that would not intend to abuse it Link to comment
Whistlebritches Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 What if revolvers were the only type of handguns that you could buy? Police and military obviously excluded. Still offers home and personal defense but certainly lowers the amount of shots that can be quickly fired. Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 What if revolvers were the only type of handguns that you could buy? Police and military obviously excluded. Still offers home and personal defense but certainly lowers the amount of shots that can be quickly fired. It depends what all you feel the purpose of the 2nd amendment is. I believe one of the main purposes of the 2nd amendment is to prevent tyranny of the government. It clearly states that. It's actually crazy to think about the vast amounts of wisdom that were displayed when constructing the constitution. Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 The concept that the citizenry can do anything to prevent government tyranny through armed conflict went away with cavalry charges and cloth-winged aircraft. 2 Link to comment
ZRod Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 The concept that the citizenry can do anything to prevent government tyranny through armed conflict went away with cavalry charges and cloth-winged aircraft. Are you sure it wasn't steel composite armor and depleted uranium shells? Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 The concept that the citizenry can do anything to prevent government tyranny through armed conflict went away with cavalry charges and cloth-winged aircraft. So you're saying we're helpless then? Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 The concept that the citizenry can do anything to prevent government tyranny through armed conflict went away with cavalry charges and cloth-winged aircraft. So you're saying we're helpless then? Answer your own question. You and 10,000 of your fellow gun-wielding citizens believe the only way to counter an out-of-control government is to take up arms. How successful will you be with the weapons in your gun cabinet? Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 The concept that the citizenry can do anything to prevent government tyranny through armed conflict went away with cavalry charges and cloth-winged aircraft.So you're saying we're helpless then?Answer your own question. You and 10,000 of your fellow gun-wielding citizens believe the only way to counter an out-of-control government is to take up arms. How successful will you be with the weapons in your gun cabinet? I realize the situation. That doesn't mean you roll over and play dead. Like any revolution, if enough people make a stand against it, they will not allow tyranny to happen. Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 And you're not going to stop a tyrannical government with your words. Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 And you're not going to stop a tyrannical government with your words. Oh, really? 2 Link to comment
knapplc Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 The concept that the citizenry can do anything to prevent government tyranny through armed conflict went away with cavalry charges and cloth-winged aircraft.So you're saying we're helpless then? Answer your own question. You and 10,000 of your fellow gun-wielding citizens believe the only way to counter an out-of-control government is to take up arms. How successful will you be with the weapons in your gun cabinet? I realize the situation. That doesn't mean you roll over and play dead. Like any revolution, if enough people make a stand against it, they will not allow tyranny to happen. The government outguns you by orders of magnitude. There is no way we, no matter how strong our resolve, can defeat F-22s and cruise missiles with light arms. In this reality, the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with overthrowing tyranny. The 1st Amendment, however, will be the far more effective tool. In fact, it's the only tool we have that can successfully overthrow our government. Link to comment
Recommended Posts