SunDog3478
Inactive
I would just ask him to state the exact disadvantage that he would like for law abiding citizens to be compared to bad people, foreign invaders or a tyrranical government force.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Was talking to an semi anti gunner, would like some advice on how to reply.
- Thread starter Kimio
- Start date
357 Python
New member
In you writing you stated, "what makes a firearm more deadly is the amount of rounds someone can put down range in a short amount of time". This is a joke in my opinion. I have an AR15, a Beretta CX4 Storm carbine, and a Winchester 190. I can put 100 rounds down range in short order. If those rounds don't hit any living target they are no more deadly than a cap gun. What makes a gun deadly is being able to hit living targets in such a way that it causes death. One hit does more damage than 100 misses.
That was him actually lol. I had explained that before, it doesn't matter how many rounds you have if you can't hit anything with it.
His argument was that in a packed crowd like the theater in Aurora, he didn't need to aim because of how dense the population was. I asked then how is a bolt action going to be any less lethal? Most hunting rifles are powerful enough to take down a full grown Buck, and the cartridges could easily pierce a victims body and go through the next. If you ask me, that's just as lethal if not more than an AR15, don't even get me started on shotguns.
He refuted it again with his tired statement of how it would be less rounds, slower rate of fire etc etc. People could have more time between shots or when he had to reload etc.
If there was another shooting they should be banned too etc.
As I said, it was pointless to continue after a while. The arguments I put out were more for those reading the thread that may have been on the fence.
His argument was that in a packed crowd like the theater in Aurora, he didn't need to aim because of how dense the population was. I asked then how is a bolt action going to be any less lethal? Most hunting rifles are powerful enough to take down a full grown Buck, and the cartridges could easily pierce a victims body and go through the next. If you ask me, that's just as lethal if not more than an AR15, don't even get me started on shotguns.
He refuted it again with his tired statement of how it would be less rounds, slower rate of fire etc etc. People could have more time between shots or when he had to reload etc.
If there was another shooting they should be banned too etc.
As I said, it was pointless to continue after a while. The arguments I put out were more for those reading the thread that may have been on the fence.
Thank, Oleg!
MADE. OF. WIN.
Men are NOT potatoes, indeed!
I want the best tool available to me. If you do not, how is it any skin off your nose that I have it?
The answer I’ve come to is radical: reject entirely the collectivist mindset. Don’t look at populations; don’t ask: among 300 million Americans, would law X result in more lives being saved than lost? That sort of cost-benefit analysis is amoral; lives are not balanceable one against the other. And, in practice, it leads to endlessly battling statistical studies. I realized I should not take a God’s eye perspective, looking down on the flock, seeking to preserve the herd. Mankind is not a herd.
MADE. OF. WIN.
Men are NOT potatoes, indeed!
I want the best tool available to me. If you do not, how is it any skin off your nose that I have it?
I've ended my debate with my "friend", and stated what I believe the 2A stands for.
The following is my interpretation and how it applies to modern firearms along with a lovely young lady stating what she believes the 2A also states.
Kimio Wrote:
A rather short video, but she covers what I believe the 2nd Amendment means.
The 2A is pretty straight forward IMHO. It never stated that "You may only arm yourself with a sword" or "Muskets are the only thing that constitutes arms"
The definition of "Arms" is very clear as well.
Arms plural of arms (Noun)
Noun
1 Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
2 Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.
Synonyms
weapon - weaponry - arm - armament
People will interpret this however they want to, but I believe that the 2A applies to "Arms" that would make it feasible for the civilian populace to have the ability, if deemed necessary to resist and perhaps overthrow a corrupt government.
That being the case, it would apply to modern weaponry, as it did back in the day when the Musket was the pinnacle of weapons technology. Thus the citizens of the US have the god given right to own and bare arms that are at least of equal effectiveness as the Military that serves the government that ultimately serves the people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mDZHgGfLCfg
Friend Wrote:
Only thing up in the air about the second amendment imo is that the founding fathers were picturing muskets when the said arms.
not this
Arms plural of arms (Noun)
Noun
1 Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
2 Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries
"Arms" have advanced so far out of the realm of balls of lead that more or less go in the direction of an enemy when you put explosives behind them in a tube that we can't be sure the founding fathers wouldn't have modified the second amendment if they had been able to see stuff like M60 machine guns or tanks.
I definitely think the concept of the second amendment is a valid thing to debate over and I don't pretend to know the real world effects of legalizing more or banning more because laws and regulation pretty much never have enough factors accounted for to get any kind of scientific result... but I don't think it makes sense to side step the debate in favor of just going on the opinion of what some guys 200 years ago thought; who had never even seen anything so much as a minie ball when they wrote it. It'd be like looking to leonardo davinci's notebook as the ultimate authority on helicopter design.
Thoughts? I see this argument brought up many times, stating that the 2A is outdated considering the advancements in technology, that the 2A had Musket's in mind. Quite frankly, I think it's pretty preposterous to think that our founding fathers would lack the foresight to know that technology would change, as would the way of war, hence why they didn't write "The 2A grants every many to wield a sword, or musket" only, they state that every US citizen has the right to "ARM" themselves, that being whatever is available and most efficient given the time.
Just my interpretation of course.
The following is my interpretation and how it applies to modern firearms along with a lovely young lady stating what she believes the 2A also states.
Kimio Wrote:
A rather short video, but she covers what I believe the 2nd Amendment means.
The 2A is pretty straight forward IMHO. It never stated that "You may only arm yourself with a sword" or "Muskets are the only thing that constitutes arms"
The definition of "Arms" is very clear as well.
Arms plural of arms (Noun)
Noun
1 Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
2 Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.
Synonyms
weapon - weaponry - arm - armament
People will interpret this however they want to, but I believe that the 2A applies to "Arms" that would make it feasible for the civilian populace to have the ability, if deemed necessary to resist and perhaps overthrow a corrupt government.
That being the case, it would apply to modern weaponry, as it did back in the day when the Musket was the pinnacle of weapons technology. Thus the citizens of the US have the god given right to own and bare arms that are at least of equal effectiveness as the Military that serves the government that ultimately serves the people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mDZHgGfLCfg
Friend Wrote:
Only thing up in the air about the second amendment imo is that the founding fathers were picturing muskets when the said arms.
not this
Arms plural of arms (Noun)
Noun
1 Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
2 Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries
"Arms" have advanced so far out of the realm of balls of lead that more or less go in the direction of an enemy when you put explosives behind them in a tube that we can't be sure the founding fathers wouldn't have modified the second amendment if they had been able to see stuff like M60 machine guns or tanks.
I definitely think the concept of the second amendment is a valid thing to debate over and I don't pretend to know the real world effects of legalizing more or banning more because laws and regulation pretty much never have enough factors accounted for to get any kind of scientific result... but I don't think it makes sense to side step the debate in favor of just going on the opinion of what some guys 200 years ago thought; who had never even seen anything so much as a minie ball when they wrote it. It'd be like looking to leonardo davinci's notebook as the ultimate authority on helicopter design.
Thoughts? I see this argument brought up many times, stating that the 2A is outdated considering the advancements in technology, that the 2A had Musket's in mind. Quite frankly, I think it's pretty preposterous to think that our founding fathers would lack the foresight to know that technology would change, as would the way of war, hence why they didn't write "The 2A grants every many to wield a sword, or musket" only, they state that every US citizen has the right to "ARM" themselves, that being whatever is available and most efficient given the time.
Just my interpretation of course.
If only swords and muskets are protected by the Second Amendment because the Founders did not know of anything different, then the First Amendment is limited to old religions, speeches and print media. Online assemblies were never conceived by them and are not protected. Twitter posts, Facebook, jpeg photos, and all other digital objects are also not protected. Television and radio are also unprotected.
Seriously, if this is the quality of his thinking, then he has no business voting.
Seriously, if this is the quality of his thinking, then he has no business voting.
Most people who aren't particularly knowledgable about firearms think that when the politicians are talking about a gun or magazine ban, they are talking about confiscating those already in existence, as well as banning new ones. They think in terms of "all we have to do is wave a magic wand and ban high capacity magazines, and they vanish from existence". So, first off, straighten your friend out on that account. Confiscation is not a feasible solution--there is no way to know who owns a high capacity magazine, and only (some) law abiding citizens will voluntarily hand over their magazines. Criminals will definitely keep theirs. The fed wont pass a high-profile law they know they can't possibly enforce.
Then I'd note that most gun murders don't happen in mass shootings.
Most gun murders also involve the illegal drug trade in one way or another, not school children. The Newtown massacre actually shows how ineffective gun control is in stopping gun violence. Connecticut is ranked by the Brady Campaign as having the 5th strictest gun control in the country-- including an assault weapons ban and waiting period. All of this did nothing to prevent the shootings. Ask your friend what new gun restriction would do more to protect the people slain than allowing a few teachers who had concealed carry permits to be allowed to carry on school property that day?
As for his "muskets, not machine guns" argument, it would help to put things in context. American citizens were not prohibited from owning any arms of any kind, up to and including those that were equal to or even superior to what the British used during the Revolutionary War. Private citizens owned warships, cannons, as well as muskets. Which would be the equivalent of you owning a fighter jet and Patriot missles today.
Then I'd note that most gun murders don't happen in mass shootings.
Most gun murders also involve the illegal drug trade in one way or another, not school children. The Newtown massacre actually shows how ineffective gun control is in stopping gun violence. Connecticut is ranked by the Brady Campaign as having the 5th strictest gun control in the country-- including an assault weapons ban and waiting period. All of this did nothing to prevent the shootings. Ask your friend what new gun restriction would do more to protect the people slain than allowing a few teachers who had concealed carry permits to be allowed to carry on school property that day?
As for his "muskets, not machine guns" argument, it would help to put things in context. American citizens were not prohibited from owning any arms of any kind, up to and including those that were equal to or even superior to what the British used during the Revolutionary War. Private citizens owned warships, cannons, as well as muskets. Which would be the equivalent of you owning a fighter jet and Patriot missles today.
mrbatchelor
New member
... Private citizens owned warships, cannons, as well as muskets. Which would be the equivalent of you owning a fighter jet and Patriot missles today.
As it should be.