Serious Question: Would you be willing to give up semi-automatic guns?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Wait I take that back. My father was tied up and held at gunpoint at his job at Kennedy Airport. Sometime in the sixties. My dad served in the navy in WWII. Still never felt the need to own a weapon.
No need to belittle my experience with ain't that special church lady righteousness.
One of my father's cousins had a gun. His ten year old son shot himself in the foot. Good thing it was pointing down.

a reply to: amazing

A rifle is one of the best choices for self defense. Specifically home defense.

With proper ammunition selection 223/.556 reduces overpenetration issues caused by handgun ammunition and buckshot/slugs that shotguns use.

Also, see my previous post about home invasions involving multiple armed attackers. In those cases, handguns put the victim at a disadvantage.

To add, many police departments have sidelined pump shotguns because they have been proven to be less effective against criminals armed with semi automatic rifles and body armor.

A well known incident for those in the law enforcement/gun community.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Wait I take that back. My father was tied up and held at gunpoint at his job at Kennedy Airport. Sometime in the sixties. My dad served in the navy in WWII. Still never felt the need to own a weapon.
No need to belittle my experience with ain't that special church lady righteousness.
One of my father's cousins had a gun. His ten year old son shot himself in the foot. Good thing it was pointing down.

Was anyone at the airport armed? Guards, anyone? How did that situation become resolved?

The point is, there are real and valid reasons for people to own guns. You can decide not to, if you wish, but it isn't reasonable to state that no one should want or have a gun, because you don't.

I have a relative who won't own one, because an autistic child in the home could easily gain access, since he gets through virtually any lock. She doesn't say no one should have them, though.

Perhaps some gun safety training would have prevented that?? Ten is well old enough to learn. Any details on how that happened?

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Feltrick

THis is a thread about Guns, not cars, alcohol, etc.

(yes I would give up cars and walk or ride bikes everywhere if everyone else had to as well, bring back horses)

It's a relevant comparison. Why be more afraid of dying from a gun than from an automobile accident?

a reply to: butcherguy

Feral hogs don't tend to come to the 'club' to be shot.

Feral hogs can't be shot with a riffle ?

Would you favor a ban on tobacco if it would save just 50 lives?

Wonder how that would go over

a reply to: jupiter869

Believe what you will about saving lives by making semi automatics illegal. Reality says that there are sooooooo many in circulation, and their owners are soooooooo paranoid of gun grabbers, that any attempt to seize such weapons has the potential to set off another civil war.

Would I give up my AR, AK and Mini14, to appease the fears of the clueless sheep. Hell no. Would I surrender my S&W, or my husband's Glock because people think that limiting my rights will preserve their own safety? No

If you don't like guns, don't buy one. Mine pose ZERO danger to anyone unless one attempts to commit a crime and threaten my family and property.

a reply to: vor78

a reply to: projectvxn

Thanks for your input on my post and your comments are fairly in line with what I was thinking.

To follow up:

* What are your thoughts on the 'well regulated' aspect of the amendment.

and coming back in line with the thread topic...

* What do you understand by the word 'arms' - is this a rifle, a semi automatic weapon, fully automatic weapon, knife.......tank (sorry i had to throw that in as a joke).

I think my problem is I'm a very literal person and I'm not the best to extrapolate and interpret things.

a reply to: Loque76

The meaning of 'well-regulated' is a difficult thing to pin down. Some will say that it means 'controlled', others 'trained'. The fact that its a descriptor attached to the militia itself leads me to believe its the latter. That being said, we already know that its long been established that Congress has some degree of authority to pass laws governing who can acquire firearms and what those arms may be. Just how much authority they have is something that will be argued over as long as 2A exists. As for my personal opinion, I think the laws are generally fine as they are, but we need to better enforce those laws, raise and make mandatory the penalties for violations, and plug a few holes that exist in the background check system.

As for what constitutes the word 'arms', I think it was originally intended to be inclusive of everything available to a regular military force. We know, for instance, that private citizens could own cannons and that the early militia was expected to provide their own weapons and ammunition. We also know that the Constitution also allows Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal to civilians, which essentially meant that civilians could own private warships. That being said, I think it best applies in modern day America to anything falling broadly under the category of 'small arms' having an application to militia service. In other words, it primarily applies to and protects things like semi-auto handguns and 'assault rifles' and 'machine guns' rather than a traditional hunting rifle or shotgun. That's the true purpose that 2A was designed around, not hunting and other sporting purposes. Personally, I do not have an issue with what a person owns. As long as you keep the mess on your own property, I don't care if you have a firing range for your howitzer or your tank, nor do I care if you own a fully loaded F-18 and an aircraft carrier.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: amazing

A rifle is one of the best choices for self defense. Specifically home defense.

With proper ammunition selection 223/.556 reduces overpenetration issues caused by handgun ammunition and buckshot/slugs that shotguns use.

Also, see my previous post about home invasions involving multiple armed attackers. In those cases, handguns put the victim at a disadvantage.

To add, many police departments have sidelined pump shotguns because they have been proven to be less effective against criminals armed with semi automatic rifles and body armor.

A well known incident for those in the law enforcement/gun community.

en.wikipedia.org...

Good points. I would still suggest hand gun for out and about and shotgun for home defense though. There are pro's and cons with rifle vs shotgun, but ease of aim and the Loud "cock" of the shotgun as deterrent are two of my reasons.

a reply to: Loque76

Here is what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter:

The term ["arms"] was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

(bracketed, bolded comment added by me, all other emphases mine)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit (many thanks to randomtangentsrme for the link)

It sure looks like the legal scholars of today think that the legal scholars of the past were well aware of what advancements might be made and still chose not to limit the types of arms (excepting "weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity") we, the people, could keep and bear.

Anyone trying to make the argument otherwise is attempting to advance a position which, "borders on the frivolous."

Saying that weapons of the time were not as efficient or that they could not fire the number of projectiles current weapons can may be technically correct, but implying that they were unheard of is erroneous.

Organ Guns (or War Carts) were primitive, yet effective, multi-chambered and multi-barreled monstrosities. As early as 1339, a firearm called the Ribauld, or Ribauldequin, was mentioned as a having several iron tubes that were arranged to fire stone projectiles simultaneously.

...

In 1382, the army at Ghent had 200 battery guns. A design constructed in 1387 had 144 barrels grouped in batteries of twelve allowing twelve salvos of twelve balls each to be fired. In 1411, the Burgundian army had 2,000 battery guns at their disposal. Louis XII (1498-1515) is reported to have used a gun having 50 barrels arranged to be fired in a single volley.

...

In 1717, James Puckle demonstrated his gun, called the Defense, to the English Board of Ordnance and a patent, number 418, was granted in London on May 15, 1718, on a single barreled gun with a revolver-like mechanism that allowed a semblance of rapid fire operation. In a demonstration in 1722, Puckle’s gun fired 63 shots in seven minutes; a truly remarkable performance at this time period.

Rapid Fire Weapons Before Maxim & Browning

Considering the fact that the men who wrote the constitution were among some of the smartest, most educated men at the time, it is fallacious to think that they could not envision an advance in the technology of arms. The technology was there and to think that that they thought it would never advance is to not give them the credit they are due.

I'll answer your question.

First, you presume: owning a semi-auto firearm is done so for “entertainment purposes.”

Incorrect. Semi-auto firearms were first created in 1885 with the intention of reducing the amount of time to make the next round ready for a follow-up shot. Before that, rifles took as long as a minute before another round could be fired. This is important when hunting game. Wild animals are moving targets, and when you need to put food on the table, a rifle which can fire again without fumbling around can mean the difference between putting food on the table or the animal getting away, possibly suffering from a wound. No hunter wants animals to feel pain. The ability to fire again means that if the first shot isn't swift and clean, you are able to take another so that the animal doesn't suffer. See any factory-farm slaughterhouse video on youtube and you will understand that hunting in the wild is far more humane than buying meat at a grocery store, considering the misery and horrible conditions that most animals endure on these “farms.” Also, in terms of economics, obtaining food from the wild has the lowest cost per pound of food of any other method.

Second presumption: a law-abiding person giving up their guns will somehow save lives.

Incorrect. One person giving up their rights has no effect whatsoever on what completely unrelated people do when they interact with each other. If a person with mental illness is committed to causing harm, they will most probably find a way to do it. Disallowing others a means of defense in fact REDUCES the odds that anyone can intervene during a confrontation to defend innocent lives.

Third presumption: There is a relationship between my using a firearm and the deaths of people at the hand of others who happened to use a firearm.

Incorrect. If someone decides to use their vehicle to run someone over, their decision is not impacted in any way whatsoever by my ability to drive or not drive a car. People are responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others. If criminal law held manufacturers responsible for actions taken by those who own their products, then every car company in the world would be sued out of existence for over 1 million deaths caused each year by motor vehicles.

So therefore, making a statement of choice between owning guns and saving lives is a completely unrelated, inaccurate and obtuse frame of argument.

a reply to: povray

This is your second post?

Sir or madam,

Please allow me to express my pleasure at reading such a well thought out and informationally dense post, and further allow me the indulgence of bidding you most welcome to this site. I await further examples of your evident flair for discussion at a later date.

Truebrit wait for the BUT CARS KILL PEOPLE as well bs .

a reply to: Denoli

There is little as dangerous to human health and wellbeing, as government itself. War is always the fault of governments, not the people they represent, but the powerful few at the pinnacle. Only disease kills more individuals than governments do.

I would be all for a ban on those.

originally posted by: jupiter869
This is a serious question because I'm honestly curious:

Would you be willing to give up using semi-automatic guns for entertainment purposes at a range (or anywhere else) if you knew giving it up meant the lives of 50 people would be saved? (or even one life?)

I do happen to know they're a real rush to use, but Is the entertainment value of using them worth more than the life of a person to you?

I'm not really talking about making gun control laws, I'm wondering how much you really value a semi-automatic rifle.

Until you get rid of and understand the truth rather than your presuppositions about things then you may never be able to understand the push back. Like "entertainment value".

Why would any selfrespecting, free individual do so, OP? You said, "If you knew (blah and blah)...if it could save one life". I, knowing I have perfect "gun control" and that my guns haven't yet killed anyone. Would not. That life they may "save" could be mine or a loved one of mine... You seem emotional. You shouldn't even be around butter knives. You feel a day at the, a range as "entertainment"? Nice try at belittling. You have no understanding of the use of arms. People that ask such silly "serious questions" shouldn't be allowed to purchase kitchen cutlery. That's how you save lives.

a reply to: Loque76

Well regulated isn't a clause and never was. In the case of the 2nd amendment, when you're talking about how it was written, the first word 'A' is just as much a "clause" as the entire first part of the sentence.

Try and find a point in an incomplete declarative sentence where the language can be held up on its own and not lose meaning.

You can't. The entire intent of the second amendment lies in the second part of the sentence.

a reply to: projectvxn

Don't worry I KNOW we have a few gay brothers(AND sisters) who have dragged their knuckles beside us who can handle this too.
What people don't at all seem to grasp is one word..."BACKLASH"
We have been oppressed by a Muslim sympathetic traitor for the last 8 years,a toll before that and a thief with his BITCH before that.
If you think They whine about Trump ...just wait.
A NATION of victims are about to wail away...

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thanks for taking the time to reply - was interesting to read.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Loque76

...We know, for instance, that private citizens could own cannons...

...I don't care if you have a firing range for your howitzer or your tank, nor do I care if you own a fully loaded F-18 and an aircraft carrier.

Thanks again - I've paraphrased what you said as it made me chuckle