I don't agree with the NRA

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by Rapewta

Gh85Carrera...

That's a low blow asking me if I am an American citizen.
I have an opinion. Respect it. Debate it.
Just for you... I grew up in Oakland Calif. Born in Hayward.

Back when I graduated from High school... You did this. You moved out and got an apartment.
You got a job. You entered college or you enlisted. At 18 back then, you were considered an adult.
Today, at 21 most are still children.
I am not against owning a firearm but we don't need children owning weapons and
adults owning a hundred of them.

I asked only because many citizens of other countries don't understand the freedom to own guns.

And I see no issue whatsoever of anyone over 21 owning as many guns as they can afford. I would love to have a car collection that makes Jay Leno jealous, and a gun collection that makes the Smithsonian envious. And maybe a world class coin collection to boot. It will never happen since I live in the real world and I have to pay my money to collect items.

[fintstone]

Much of the argument about magazine size here seems to have to do with just how many rounds you need for self defense, presumably against an intruder or assailant. That is really not the purpose of the 2nd, although important. The real reason is that large capacity magazines (and other weaponry) are available to potential oppressors, including our own federal and local government...as well as those who might seek to overthrow our country by force (internally and externally). Even worse, I suspect they will bring their friends if they actually intend to overthrow anything...and I would want enough bullets so each would get their very own.

Even considering the self-defense issue...if potential enemies/assailants are only armed with hammers...why would I choose to limit my defensive capability to a similar hammer? Even more so, why would I limit my 90lb wife or child to a hammer for defense against a couple of 250lb men with hammers? Do I care if she unloads a 30 round magazine into the two of them? Not one bit. I can buy more bullets. If she misses with 20 of the 30 rounds...oh well. I guess I have some extra drywall work to do. Lots of bad people are younger, faster, etc...and I would prefer an advantage. In a life or death situation, I would not make any attempt to make the fight "fair".

[Porchdog]

Originally Posted by cabmando

I get the whole 2A.. I'm a gun owner. Own several. But anyone who believes they could take a fight to our federal government needs their head examined. It's not even the Military you'd have to worry about, it's the police. God forbid it ever happened, if the Military took the side of the government in protecting the country from enemies foreign and domestic, the uprising wouldn't last more than a week. The talk of owning arms to to combat an oppressive government is Rambo type bull****. In reality, they'd be squashed like bugs. Look at the brave souls who took over that federal building in Oregon. Once the gloves came off they surrendered peacefully in spite of all the big talk. Reality my friend, they're already better armed and have more ammo than most people could ever imagine. Back in the day before there was air power you could maybe pull it off. If they own the air and have a significant ground force, it's game over.

Yet the Afghans are still fighting.

Neighborhoods all over this country have police who don't want to get out of their cars because of a hostile populace. Just the other day two officers released a drug suspect when they were surrounded by other bystanders in a park (who also took the confiscated drugs from the patrol car).

We have government officials threatening to use nuclear weapons on civilians to enforce gun restrictions.

I don't have any Rambo type fantasies. I am completely fed up with nose in the air politicians and journalists telling me that I shouldn't have any right to defend my home, my family or myself while they cower behind armed guards. Especially when my taxes pay for those armed guards.

The government is constantly attacking my rights because they allow extensive cultures of lawlessness. Meanwhile the media and entertainment industries glorify violence.

[Tobra]

High cap magazines legal in California with the stroke of a judge's, rather than a legislative pen.

I can't imagine my wife missing anything 5 times, let alone 20.

Cops in California generally use Mini 14 rather than AR rifles. Does that mean I have to turn mine in? A lot of cops shoot 9 mm and have a .38 back up, does that cross those off the civilian approved list?

[GH85Carrera]

I always wanted the guns used in the movies. 200 to 300 rounds from a normal size pistol. Magic of Hollywood capacity. On the flip side, I want bad guys that shoot like Storm Troopers, and can spray thousands of rounds and only his trees, and car doors that are bullet proof and never hit the hero.

In the real world, I have a handgun at the ready and I hope to never need it, but I will likely empty it into any intruder.

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by cabmando

I think that's the generally accepted definition.. Me I say any weapon used to assault someone is by definition an "assault weapon"

Assault hammers. Assault knife. The Boston bomber used Assault Pressure Cookers.

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by cabmando

If you truly believe what you're saying that the right can't be infringed upon even in the slightest by the government then you must believe that revoking the right of someone to own a firearm because of felony conviction is wrong.

This is an absurd example to justify your desire to reduce the availability of guns to the point of nullifying the 2a. Surely you can come up with a less ludicrous example.
Of course we have restrictions. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater. A felon has lost their Constitutional rights by the willful act of committing a felony.
The point of 2A is not just the right to own weapons but it is also to have the ability to have a well maintained militia to keep an out of control government in check. A mag restriction is akin to going into a boxing match but only one person can use both arms.
Again, these legally elected officials enacted restrictions of gun ownership.

[Por_sha911]

Every mentally healthy person (from any nation) should be outraged when injustice happens. Innocent people are killed and we want to lash out. Unfortunately screaming at the sky and "Lets make more laws" won't fix a darn thing. It is already illegal to use a gun in a crime. Hey, it is already illegal kill people by any means. We don't need to be angry at people who own pressure cookers because some were used in a bombing.
If you want to fix the problem then fix the people. We don't have a gun problem. We have morality and sin problem. People have decided that there is no God and that man is essentially good. I don't see that working out for us. The degradation of societal morals is escalating and a new law isn't going to fix that. I will go so far as to say that even if you don't believe in God and that there is a Heaven to gain and a Hell to shun, you can support moral behavior. Lets get back to the days when it was a shame to be a cheat, liar, back-stabber... Love your neighbor as yourself. If you do that, you won't cheat on your wife, lie on you tax returns, hate people because they are a different color (or God forbid, wear a MAGA hat!). A morally accountable person with an Uzi is less dangerous than a wacko with a baseball bat (and we already have enough laws to restrict the wackos).

[tabs]

Originally Posted by cabmando

I get the whole 2A.. I'm a gun owner. Own several. But anyone who believes they could take a fight to our federal government needs their head examined. It's not even the Military you'd have to worry about, it's the police. God forbid it ever happened, if the Military took the side of the government in protecting the country from enemies foreign and domestic, the uprising wouldn't last more than a week. The talk of owning arms to to combat an oppressive government is Rambo type bull****. In reality, they'd be squashed like bugs. Look at the brave souls who took over that federal building in Oregon. Once the gloves came off they surrendered peacefully in spite of all the big talk. Reality my friend, they're already better armed and have more ammo than most people could ever imagine. Back in the day before there was air power you could maybe pull it off. If they own the air and have a significant ground force, it's game over.

I am afraid you are wrong...john Brown raided Harper's Ferry in hopes of inciting a slave rebellion which failed to work. It was a small group.

Yet a year later 11 states succeeded and it took.4 years of bloodshed and a man with extrodinary political talents to reign it back in.

Today the disgruntlement is far more amorphic and widespread. If you just listen to the sentiment of the Boyz defending the 2a on this Board you can hear the dissatisfaction with this government. There are at least 75m gun owners in the US....how many will turn em in..most will just tuck them away. The authorities do not have the capability to go door to door.

The situation in the US has created an angry and sullen populace on both sides of the political spectrum. As the situation continues to go south more people will become even angrier and more sullen. Let us call them angry ants on a hot tin plate.

Why do you think Trump and AOC and friends got elected..it wasn't because people were happy with the staus quo. Think about it the Tea Party was the first sign of massive disatisfaction...it would be a mistake looking at these groups through the lens of partisan politics but rather seen for the commonality of being dissatisfied with the way their government is being run.

[tabs]

The American people are fed up with the business as usual crowd..Chicago has just elected its first black, gay woman as Mayor..she has no political experience but was a prosecutor, and is promising to clean up the corruption. The important thing to note like Trump and AOC she is the outsider who is a REFORMER.

The DCCC is wanting to pass rules that will black ball and or ban any consultant who aids a challenger to an incumbant Democrat in a primary...so much for the Democrat Party being democratic..that is a move made out of fear of losing power.

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by cabmando

... Look at the brave souls who took over that federal building in Oregon. Once the gloves came off they surrendered peacefully in spite of all the big talk...

This was a very small group of people that were outnumbered. Most common citizens stood back, watching it on the news.
Should the police ever decide to go door to door confiscating weapons, who is outnumbered then?
Quite the bloodbath, I would guess.

I would like to confirm the commonly heard anecdote that during WWII the Japanese were afraid to invade the US mainland because:
"in America, there is a gun behind every blade of grass".
The Japanese army would not stand up to the well-armed American citizens.

[Evans, Marv]

Originally Posted by tabs

Why do you think Trump and AOC and friends got elected..it wasn't because people were happy with the staus quo. Think about it the Tea Party was the first sign of massive disatisfaction...it would be a mistake looking at these groups through the lens of partisan politics but rather seen for the commonality of being dissatisfied with the way their government is being run.

This is the situation I think the majority of people don't address, when it's so obvious.

[GH85Carrera]

One of the events that happened recently in Oklahoma was this.

https://newsok.com/article/5596021/police-identify-louies-gunman-victims-civilians-who-ended-shooting

One nut job walked into a local popular restaurant and shot a mother and child and was ready to kill more people. Two different men, that had never met, ran back to their car, retrieved their guns, and went after the shooter. The bad guy was put down like a rabid coyote and both men were called heroes. The prosecutor never seriously considered prosecution them heroes. He knew heroes when he saw them.

The two men did not know each other. Both decided to risk their lives to put down a nut job. From the article linked:

As the shots rang out, Juan Carlos Nazario, 35, and Bryan Whittle, 39, ran to the trunks of their vehicles to retrieve handguns and ran towards Tilghman, who police said was wearing protective ear muffs and shooting glasses. Both men fired at Tilghman, who was still armed with a handgun.

Tilghman died at least 50 feet away from where he began firing, but no other details about the encounter were released, said Oklahoma City police Capt. Bo Mathews.

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Much of the argument about magazine size here seems to have to do with just how many rounds you need for self defense, presumably against an intruder or assailant. That is really not the purpose of the 2nd, although important. The real reason is that large capacity magazines (and other weaponry) are available to potential oppressors, including our own federal and local government...as well as those who might seek to overthrow our country by force (internally and externally). Even worse, I suspect they will bring their friends if they actually intend to overthrow anything...and I would want enough bullets so each would get their very own.

Even considering the self-defense issue...if potential enemies/assailants are only armed with hammers...why would I choose to limit my defensive capability to a similar hammer? Even more so, why would I limit my 90lb wife or child to a hammer for defense against a couple of 250lb men with hammers? Do I care if she unloads a 30 round magazine into the two of them? Not one bit. I can buy more bullets. If she misses with 20 of the 30 rounds...oh well. I guess I have some extra drywall work to do. Lots of bad people are younger, faster, etc...and I would prefer an advantage. In a life or death situation, I would not make any attempt to make the fight "fair".

That was my point a page or two ago. Against a tyranny we are already at a disadvantage in weaponry, but we do have a large armed populace should we all decide to work together. That said against a police force we might do OK, against a political state with martial law not so much. Most don't have a defense against Srykers and Bradleys.

Even for personal defense, look at the FBI firefight in Miami for evidence of how many rounds are not enough and what isn't big enough when you don't have enough rounds.

[Porchdog]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

Every mentally healthy person (from any nation) should be outraged when injustice happens. Innocent people are killed and we want to lash out. Unfortunately screaming at the sky and "Lets make more laws" won't fix a darn thing. It is already illegal to use a gun in a crime. Hey, it is already illegal kill people by any means. We don't need to be angry at people who own pressure cookers because some were used in a bombing.
If you want to fix the problem then fix the people. We don't have a gun problem. We have morality and sin problem. People have decided that there is no God and that man is essentially good. I don't see that working out for us. The degradation of societal morals is escalating and a new law isn't going to fix that. I will go so far as to say that even if you don't believe in God and that there is a Heaven to gain and a Hell to shun, you can support moral behavior. Lets get back to the days when it was a shame to be a cheat, liar, back-stabber... Love your neighbor as yourself. If you do that, you won't cheat on your wife, lie on you tax returns, hate people because they are a different color (or God forbid, wear a MAGA hat!). A morally accountable person with an Uzi is less dangerous than a wacko with a baseball bat (and we already have enough laws to restrict the wackos).

Here, here.

The culture of lawlessness in many parts of this country and segments of society has been tolerated for far to long.

It's a travesty to blame the results on law abiding gun owners (the overwhelming majority of whom do not participate in that culture).

Just one example - Why is nothing done over decades to end the rampant violence and crime in Chicago, Camden, Newark, Atlanta, Baltimore? Plenty of money is spent, Plenty of campaign promises but nothing changes. Think of the children growing up in those neighborhoods.

[flipper35]

Those areas have some of the toughest laws on gun ownership as well and a lot of those areas have high single parent multiple dad lots of kid families for income management.

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by Dantilla

This was a very small group of people that were outnumbered. Most common citizens stood back, watching it on the news..

That was a terrible deal all the way around. The "shootoit" video gives good reason to ban guns from radicals and law enforcement. Watch the youtube video and be prepared to shake your head.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

This is an absurd example to justify your desire to reduce the availability of guns to the point of nullifying the 2a.]

Attaboy! Fly off the handle and make ridiculous assumptions. You clearly didn't read all of my comments or if you did you weren't capable of understanding what was written. I have no desire to "nullify the 2A".. I own multiple guns. Why would I want to nullify the amendment that allows me to do so?

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

The point of 2A is not just the right to own weapons but it is also to have the ability to have a well maintained militia to keep an out of control government in check.

Any gun owner that believes they own a gun to keep the government in check isn't living in reality and should put the video games away. As I said earlier it's a ridiculous dream that you'd stand a chance against a force with superior weapons, the ability to control the air and shut down nearly every line of communication you possess. It's a fantasy to believe the people could rise up and take down an oppressive regime.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Porchdog

Yet the Afghans are still fighting.

Take the gloves off our military and it would be over in a matter of days. Don't believe me? Look at what we did twice in Iraq. We wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Dantilla

This was a very small group of people that were outnumbered. Most common citizens stood back, watching it on the news.

And the reality is, you'd be outnumbered, out gunned, and as I pointed out above, unable to communicate with others because they have a technological advantage and could shut down nearly all lines of communication. We aren't living in revolutionary war times or civil war times. It's 2019 and the people who believe they could stand up against an oppressive government that would have the ability to control the air, land, and lines of communication would win.