Defending Hi-Cap Mags

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
This was my response to a FB friend's wall post. It is probably the last of my long rants on 2nd Amendment Rights here on ATS, I think I have covered everything I felt compelled to say on the subject. Feel free to use, pick apart, critique or bash.

Earlier this week you posted, "I am waiting for an intelligent answer (or any answer) to what a law abiding citizen needs more than 10 rounds in a gun for?" I wanted to respond to that, but I imagine it will take more space than the comment window allows.
In full disclosure, I am a strong believer in our constitutional rights. I also own (PRIVACY CENSORED). I have debated this issue extensively over the last few months on a discussion forum I frequent. While there are 'personal defense' arguments on your question that I could trace out, I prefer to go to the original intent of the 2nd amendment whenever possible.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, 1791:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." [1]
Why was this right, to keep and carry weapons included?

Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militia's ability to be a match for a standing army: "...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."[2]

Many many more historical precedents can be quoted in addition to Hamilton's. Additionally, scholarly legal analysis of word meanings and associations of the document's era clearly side with private ownership, not "formal militia usage."[3]
In fact, a logical and historically based argument could be made that increased rights to own more powerful weapons is in line with the original intent of the constitutional framers. I however do not make nor agree with that argument.

My core argument, to finally answer your question, is that of deterrence.

While the informal citizen militia composed of firearm owners such as myself are no match for a war with the military, the large scale presence of PDW's, ('personal defense weapons,' a definition used by DHS last month for M-16's [4]) present a substantial deterrent to increased totalitarian methods within our communities. If it came to blows, the government would have to go all in and risk losing broader support internally and internationally.
A very popular response to this reasoning is either an ad hominem attack; "...you're paranoid/crazy/delusional!" or my favorite, personal incredulity; "...that could NEVER happen in this day and age!"

Here's why I assert that I am not crazy:
A) We are no more evolved intellectually than our grandparents. While the playing field has gotten more complex, their generation dealt with the much of the same social & political issues as we do today.
B) Germany, 1933. A nation of our grandparent's generation. A nation with rule of law; President, Chancellor, Courts, Parliament, Constitution. Scientists, Authors, Poets, Lawyers.
C)Post WWI, no firearm possession was allowed, with strict penalties associated. 1928 brought about 'relaxations', whereby a citizen who could prove need was issued a permit to own a firearm, and would require a separate permit to carry. These records were kept by the government. This persisted until 1938, when Hitler deregulated long guns (presumably for civil defense reasons; he was about to launch a campaign against the whole of Europe)[5][6]
D) Feb. 1933: In a political climate rife with problems (social, financial, etc) Hitler is appointed Chancellor. Within a month, he orchestrates the Reichstag fire[7]. The next day the Reichstag Fire Decree was passed, rescinding most of the German people's rights (but not gun ownership).
Within a month, Hitler had legislatively secured a 4 year exemption to pass laws without Parliamentary debate, this was in direct violation of their constitution.
From 1933 thru 1935, to secure power, more than 3 million Germans were held in concentration camps, and ~75,000 Germans were tried and executed on false charges, both military and civilian. Targets were those in any position of influence whose loyalty was not secured.[8]
A year and a half after becoming Chancellor, Hitler ordered the "Night of the Long Knives" operation (30 June to 2 July 1934), in which ~200 of his last political opponents were assassinated. Hitler's rise to dictatorship was complete.

I outline this not to equate anyone or any administration with Nazis, but to illustrate that in a year and a half, a nation ruled by modern law was overtaken by a totalitarian regime with a gun control structure in place very close to what Feinstein is proposing today.

This happened to an educated, modern population who were as capable and intelligent as we are today. If men capable of fomenting and completing this scale of evil existed less than a hundred years ago, we would be fools to think that like-minded men do not exist today as well.
We would be even more foolish to pretend that somehow "this could not happen again." History should have taught us this lesson already. It happens over and over, typically to populations that grow complacent or have been disarmed.

The increase in 'patriot groups' and individuals that are so vocal today against such creeping loss of rights is evidence that the 2nd Amendment mechanism is working exactly as the framers intended. Vocal ideological dissent is the first avenue of redress we have against the government.

The voice of millions of peaceful but well-armed citizens carries infinitely more weight than millions of unarmed voices.

In fact, it is my opinion that the recent executive orders were watered down in direct response to the general public's (gun-owning) reaction to proposals floated by the White House. Had the people's attitude been tepid, PDW's would be banned as we talk now.

My contention is that 30 round magazines collecting dust in an attic hold an immeasurable amount of political power for the citizens of America to retain our voice and demand redress of the government. These weapons and clips provide a very tangible deterrent to those who are willing to destroy the rule of law for their own power.

-blamethegreys

1. Young, David E., The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, p.222.
2. Hamilton, Alexander, 1788,The Federalist Papers #29, Library of Congress
3. www.fbo.gov...
4. Halbrook, Stephen P. (2000) "Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews." Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol 17. No. 3. p.494.
5. Harcourt, Bernard E (2004) "On the NRA, Adolph Hitler, Gun Registration, and the Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)"
6. David I. Caplan, 1976, Restoring the Balance: The Second Amendment Revisited, Fordham Urban Law Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1
7. Tipton, Frank, A History of Modern Germany, since 1815, Continuum Press New York, 2003
8. Kitchen, Martin (2006). A History of Modern Germany, 1800–2000. Malden, MA: Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-0040-3.
edit on 16-2-2013 by blamethegreys because: changed the title a bit




posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Very nice.

It's good to see a sane man with solid reasoning defend the right to defend one's self and one's country.
If you have the time could you "stand in" for Alex Jones next time he debates Piers Morgan?

It would be greatly appreciated.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


Thanks! I'm flattered that you feel my logic is at a national debate level!

Sadly though, I am best as a keyboard warrior. On the spot I forget all kinds of important facts and figures, and end up walking away with a thousand "Oh I shoulda saids".



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by blamethegreys
 


i pefer to call them standard capacity mags(the mags not drums) as they were usualy shipped with the weapon when it was sold and thus an ar-15 with a 30 round mag would be a standard capacity as opposed to a drum that would be labeled a high capacity as i find the term "high capacity mag" is over used by the media to demonize inanimate objects but star and flag op keep fighting the good fight.

your post reminded me of one i had with one of my liberal friends he asked me how many examples of guns w high caps saving lives that didnt involve police vs ones that did involve police and high caps i sent him over 40 links and articles and various other ones which he refered to as TLDR instead of even trying to argue the point that he had been wrong



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
We have a huge rattlesnake problem on my parents ranch.

Have you ever tried to take out a rattlesnake nest with a pistol or rifle? You'll get a bunch of pissed off snakes after you.

The best tool for that job is something like the AR-15 (preferable 2 or 3) and to cover that area with as many bullets as possible.

You also want a lot of rounds when trying to nail coyotes from a distance. You rarely ever get more than one before they take off running and the more shots you can fire before having to reload means more kills.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


Good point, I'll try to incorporate that in future postings. I thought the 'standard' for an AR was 20 rd.
Like your friend, I imagine my friend will do the same. But if we don't try nothing will get better



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Well, maybe some people need more than 10 shells in their gun but I don't. Maybe people just need to learn to aim better before pulling the trigger.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
Well, maybe some people need more than 10 shells in their gun but I don't. Maybe people just need to learn to aim better before pulling the trigger.


Not sure if you've ever been in an emergency situation all of a sudden and tried to hit something but its not that easy.

I got jumped by a badger once and was so busy dodging and running around that I couldn't hit it with a single shot. Luckily my dad dropped it before it got a hold of me.

You often don't have time to aim and fire off a round.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by blamethegreys
 


I think where your argument falls apart is that most Americans today don't fear their government. They have no reason to fear their government. The idea that the citizens of America would have to wage war against their own government, in this day and age, is laughable to a vast majority of Americans.

You (as a citizen) are already outgunned and outmatched by the government. To try and make the connection between Hamilton's viewpoint and the modern weapons of today is feeble at best and would've been better argued 100+ years ago. The SCOTUS has already upheld the idea that the government can restrict what types of weapons you can have (United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939)).

I can fully agree on the need for the second amendment if we didn't already have state and federal militaries. We have no need for an armed citizenry, thus no need for a "right" to bear arms. To argue that the second amendment is meant only for the defense of oneself against the state is tenuous at best. It's been ruled time and time again that the second amendment was included for defense of the state. To take your argument would be to include the addendum that eliminating the US military is paramount to inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms.

This is not the argument you're making though. The government has the right to restrict high capacity magazines and most citizens have very little to no use for them.

Ultimately I feel that all this protectionist gun talk is manufactured. The gun industry wants you to be upset at the idea of strengthening already existing laws and creating useful laws when it comes to gun ownership. If you honestly believe the NRA has your best interests in mind and not the millions of dollars they make from the manufacturing, sale and increased membership dues that arguments like these have then you're blind to the truth.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by blamethegreys
 


Considering it takes but a few split seconds to change a mag whats the point?



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by rickymouse
Well, maybe some people need more than 10 shells in their gun but I don't. Maybe people just need to learn to aim better before pulling the trigger.


Not sure if you've ever been in an emergency situation all of a sudden and tried to hit something but its not that easy.

I got jumped by a badger once and was so busy dodging and running around that I couldn't hit it with a single shot. Luckily my dad dropped it before it got a hold of me.

You often don't have time to aim and fire off a round.


So your dad probably got it with one shot? Confidence and overcoming the fight and flight systems of the mind is the clue. You need to become one with the gun.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by blamethegreys
 


You (as a citizen) are already outgunned and outmatched by the government. To try and make the connection between Hamilton's viewpoint and the modern weapons of today is feeble at best and would've been better argued 100+ years ago. The SCOTUS has already upheld the idea that the government can restrict what types of weapons you can have (United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939)).


This argument is a sort of prima facie argument and is of no effect to the 2nd amendment. An argument that is sort of tossed out there ad hoc. In fact the 2nd is better defended by the fact that the people are "outgunned" by the government. The idea that the 2nd is made irrelevant due to the fact that the government is so well armed has zero legal standing.


I can fully agree on the need for the second amendment if we didn't already have state and federal militaries. We have no need for an armed citizenry, thus no need for a "right" to bear arms. To argue that the second amendment is meant only for the defense of oneself against the state is tenuous at best. It's been ruled time and time again that the second amendment was included for defense of the state. To take your argument would be to include the addendum that eliminating the US military is paramount to inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms.


You are not arguing with amatures. The fact is that the 2nd was included with the federal military in mind. Thats why its there. And it is not a total product of state defence as well. The armed population arguments were made by Madison and taken as a whole all the known debate of that day on the 2nd points squarely at the idea of an armed population.


This is not the argument you're making though. The government has the right to restrict high capacity magazines and most citizens have very little to no use for them.


the fact is that the 2nd amendment is a need amendment. The 2nd is all about use.... need....and parity. The fact that the people are outgunned and thus should just give up the second and their efforts to defend it is to suggest....as you do....that government power trumps the rights of the people.


Ultimately I feel that all this protectionist gun talk is manufactured. The gun industry wants you to be upset at the idea of strengthening already existing laws and creating useful laws when it comes to gun ownership. If you honestly believe the NRA has your best interests in mind and not the millions of dollars they make from the manufacturing, sale and increased membership dues that arguments like these have then you're blind to the truth.


The NRA represents, as in members, but a fraction of the total gun owners in this country. You are fearfully mistaken if you think the gun protectionist talk is a manufacture of representitives of gun owners and gun makers, target shooters, hunters, ect and not a real defence of the 2nd amendment and the constitution at large.
edit on 16-2-2013 by Logarock because: n



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by rickymouse
Well, maybe some people need more than 10 shells in their gun but I don't. Maybe people just need to learn to aim better before pulling the trigger.


Not sure if you've ever been in an emergency situation all of a sudden and tried to hit something but its not that easy.

I got jumped by a badger once and was so busy dodging and running around that I couldn't hit it with a single shot. Luckily my dad dropped it before it got a hold of me.

You often don't have time to aim and fire off a round.




So your dad probably got it with one shot? Confidence and overcoming the fight and flight systems of the mind is the clue. You need to become one with the gun.


He didn't have a badger trying to crawl up his backside. You ever see the claws on those things?

I was firing so wildly I almost hit him. Maybe I'm just a panicker....that was the only time I was really in a bad situation and I guess I failed miserably.

Point is that its not easy to shoot in a chaotic situation unless you have combat training or something I guess. At least for me it isn't.
edit on 16-2-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
Very nice.

It's good to see a sane man with solid reasoning defend the right to defend one's self and one's country.
If you have the time could you "stand in" for Alex Jones next time he debates Piers Morgan?

It would be greatly appreciated.



Piers has Alex Jones on his show and what does he get? Alex Jones.

Morgan is a shock jock running cover behind his plati-tudes. His most holy and indignant platitudinous talking head!



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


When I was young, a partridge taking off when I was hunting made my heart jumpstart. Now it doesn't effect me anymore. If you would have yelled "Yeah, get the hell outa here" the badger would have looked at you and walked away. He'd probably think he may catch your craziness if he bit you and get scared.
Animals can sense if you are scared, so can many humans.

I had two Coons on my back porch and I don't like coons because if the kids accidentally corner them they will attack their hand. They can carry rabies also. I told them that I don't like coons and the price of coonskins was high right now so don't ever come back. They never returned. Those pesky coons will chew up shovel and rake handles looking for salt.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


I will definitely take your advice than.

I obviously cannot kill them so yelling would probably be better, I know I'm good at that.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Logarock:

Thanks for the response to whazzhisface. I just got home and checked the thread. I saw his post and thought, "Oh crap, I am so tired...but I started the thread so I really got to reply."

He completely skipped over the ENTIRE point I was making. That the PDW/Mags buy us a more powerful voice simply by being in our possession, and that the PDW's are a deterrent to bold-faced tyranny.

Then I saw your rebuttal. Owe you one. I'm off to bed.

Oh and I really liked the last point you made.

I for one have never been a member of the NRA. I don't own a PDW. The raciest thing I got is a semi-auto pistol. Everything else is a PDS: Pretty Damn Small caliber.
I just understand the true value of our constitutional rights, and I can study out what happens to people who lose them. I don't want to lose them.
edit on 16-2-2013 by blamethegreys because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


While you are yelling at the next badger, keep the gun pointed at him. If he doesn't listen and comes closer than shoot him. It's all about keeping the fear from overcoming you. It also makes you feel that you gave the animal a warning and you don't feel so bad about killing him then.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


automatic star for the phrase "you got jumped by a badger"! you got me curious now as that seems like the 2nd worst situation to find your self in(first being honey badger)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


just fyi we out number police and military in this country by roughly 100 to one and the amount of private arms in American hands is closer to 1000-1 with us being on the big side vs the government.hell every year new Hampshire becomes the largest standing army during deer season when 4 million of them take to the woods to shoot bambi.

en.wikipedia.org... source for number of military active and reserve

www.cnn.com... one of the many on the size and scope of the private arsenal in civilian hands

and in case you dont like links


The defence forces of the United States are reported to have 3,054,5533 firearms Compare Number of Law Enforcement Firearms Police in the United States are reported to have 897,4004 firearms

www.gunpolicy.org...

Number of Privately Owned Firearms The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,0001 Compare Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.82 firearms per 100 people


for comparison the PLA(peoples liberation army of china) has only 2,285,000 people in their active armed forces that gives American civilians a 10-1 arms advantage over the standing army of one of the most populated nations in the world.

then the inevitable comment of well the military has drones and jets and bombers etc....alot of good that did Gaddafi as he was drug into the streets and shot like an animal while he begged for his life to have it uploaded to youtube of all places.The west by condemning the Arab nations for using high level military technology(jets tanks bombers etc) on civilians/rebels set the standard that that kind of behavior will not be tolerated by nations (or at least our politicians ranted about it in Libby and Egypt and Syria) so if they ended up doing that they would end up getting roasted in the international community and as rebels the citizens would have the advantage of every time they were attacked more rebels would join the cause.

and to counter the point of insurgents cant be effective well look at the Vietnamese and Viet Kong they drove our armies out of their countries with almost no air force Armour by gods they fought us from bicycles while we bombed them with b52's and they persevered and forced us from their shores only to then be invaded by china who they then kicked them out of their country as well.

Just like the Taliban and Iraqi militants took more of a toll on the most advanced military on the planet using mostly home made bombs and rifles either made using rocks and simple tools to hammer them into shape or using 100+ year old rifles to fight marines(mosin nagant's).


read your history Americans invented armed rebellion(least successful ones) an armed rabble of peasants,farmers and hunters most of which were not even in support of our independence beat the tar out of the "empire that the sun never set on" who was the super power of its day so by all means underestimate us it makes us smile

as to your no one needs 30 rounders who are you to say what we do or don't need? and as to the gun lobby they are the only lobby in this country that makes the Israeli lobby look weak.gun manufactures are pulling out of anti gun states and refusing to do business with the federal government,sheriffs all over the nation say they are not going to enforce unconstitutional laws and saying they will stand with the people,states are passing laws saying they will arrest federal officials who try to enforce federal gun laws

we gun owners will not stand our 2nd amendment rights being infringed we will remember the names of the politicians that tried to pass these foolish measures and systematically remove all of them office by the power of vote alone just like how the republicans took the house in the first place on the heels of failed gun legislation

we will not stand for laws that make no sense and are proposed out of emotion not logic,we will not be fooled by politicians trying to pass their unjust laws on the backs of dead children.

we shall not be fooled we shall not be infringed we are mostly students of history we remember Hitler and Mao we remember Stalin and Lenin and we remember pol pot we will not be disarmed when the knock comes on the door in the middle of the night.

sorry for the rant but i felt it needed to be said




top topics
 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join