Defending Hi-Cap Mags

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by blamethegreys
 


Has that guy responded to this yet, or is he doing what so many others do when presented with facts, ignoring it?




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by links234
 

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


Then what the hell are you all so afraid of? You outnumber 'them', you outgun 'them', there's no reason for you to be upset when 'they' say you can't own a particular type of firearm. If you want to wage war on any government, you go right ahead.

More importantly though, I want to address the comment about the supposed 'importance' of the second amendment. How just wielding a weapon makes your opinion more worthy of being heard than an unarmed individual. Threatening to get your way, not through reason or rationality, but through force. I find it absurd that your arguments boil down to stopping one form of tyranny with another form of tyranny.

That's what this is about right? You don't want to argue for legitimate reasons you just want to silence the opposition through force, or at the very least, threat of force. The only rationale I've heard out of this thread for 'Hi-Cap Mags' is to kill snakes and overthrow the government. A legitimate, democratically elected government I might add.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by links234
 

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


Then what the hell are you all so afraid of? You outnumber 'them', you outgun 'them', there's no reason for you to be upset when 'they' say you can't own a particular type of firearm. If you want to wage war on any government, you go right ahead.


There is no reason the government should be upset then. The question is to the government...."do you intend to wage war on the people?" That question was already answered with the second amendmaent which states in effect that the govenment cant be trusted to have a one sided weapons program.


More importantly though, I want to address the comment about the supposed 'importance' of the second amendment. How just wielding a weapon makes your opinion more worthy of being heard than an unarmed individual. Threatening to get your way, not through reason or rationality, but through force. I find it absurd that your arguments boil down to stopping one form of tyranny with another form of tyranny.


As long as the government respects the peoples rights here, as granted in the 2nd amendment, the issues will never be forced. Our opinion is more worthy to be heard simply because we seek to maintain and exercise the right.


That's what this is about right? You don't want to argue for legitimate reasons you just want to silence the opposition through force, or at the very least, threat of force. The only rationale I've heard out of this thread for 'Hi-Cap Mags' is to kill snakes and overthrow the government. A legitimate, democratically elected government I might add.


Even a democratically elected government is out of bounds when they seek to play god with the rights of the people. These rights were given before and not subject to the shifting winds of elected officals.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Even a democratically elected government is out of bounds when they seek to play god with the rights of the people. These rights were given before and not subject to the shifting winds of elected officals.


The rights of the people are bestowed upon them by the people themselves through their government. The bill of rights is a fantastic philosophical experiment that has been expanded by the collective governments of the world since its inception.

That's the distinct difference between you and me; I don't believe that God intended for you to have the ability to more efficiently kill other people, even if Thomas Jefferson did.

There are legitimate uses for firearms. Leaving them lying unlocked on your kitchen table so that your disgruntled teenage son can extract some 'justice' on a former teacher is not one of them.

The entire gun control discussion frustrates me very quickly because you all choose to focus on only one aspect of proposed legislation, while completely ignoring the potential for common ground. This is the idea I brought up earlier when I mentioned manufactured controversy stemming from the NRA.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by Logarock
Even a democratically elected government is out of bounds when they seek to play god with the rights of the people. These rights were given before and not subject to the shifting winds of elected officals.


The rights of the people are bestowed upon them by the people themselves through their government. The bill of rights is a fantastic philosophical experiment that has been expanded by the collective governments of the world since its inception.

That's the distinct difference between you and me; I don't believe that God intended for you to have the ability to more efficiently kill other people, even if Thomas Jefferson did.


You claim to understand how human rights have been expanded upon untill we here reached our current philosophy, a philosphy born out of a hard look at the history of government and not an "experiment" as some suppose, then you must understand how the right to kill was not reserved to the government in all cases.....ie that the people could exercise martial force when their rights were under blatant duress. This right, as were others, was reserved for the people before power was granted to the government.


There are legitimate uses for firearms. Leaving them lying unlocked on your kitchen table so that your disgruntled teenage son can extract some 'justice' on a former teacher is not one of them.


This is simply bigoted hyperbolic speech.


The entire gun control discussion frustrates me very quickly because you all choose to focus on only one aspect of proposed legislation, while completely ignoring the potential for common ground. This is the idea I brought up earlier when I mentioned manufactured controversy stemming from the NRA.


So the NRA or any other group representing the constitutional rights of the people are getting in the way of "common ground" as if we could find probity there. More like "common ground" had become a synonyme for some bait and switch game. I would rather walk away from the table with my rights in tact and in full health rather than drink the putrid waters of "common ground'. I can tell my grandson some day about how we once had the rights under the 2nd but lost them in la la land searching for "common ground".
edit on 18-2-2013 by Logarock because: n



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by BobSwagger
 


Nope, ignored completely, while still posting anti-gun rhetoric on FB

Frankly I am surprised I wasn't unfriended.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


...More importantly though, I want to address the comment about the supposed 'importance' of the second amendment. How just wielding a weapon makes your opinion more worthy of being heard than an unarmed individual. Threatening to get your way, not through reason or rationality, but through force. I find it absurd that your arguments boil down to stopping one form of tyranny with another form of tyranny.

Links, your usual tactics aren't going to work here. If you want to debate with the grown ups, step up your game brother. The set up statements to your logical fallacy are fallacious in and of themselves.

You're supposed to be responding to Ralalga in this post...he said nothing about making opinions more worthy. You must be responding to my OP in which I didn't say what you're trying to twist it into.
Likely you're confused about the line saying "The voice of millions of peaceful but well-armed citizens carries infinitely more weight than millions of unarmed voices." Perhaps it's my fault for not defining this better.
My position is this: All voices are equal. Not all voices are equally heard. When a government is dealing with a free and armed population, they pay much more attention to the voice of the people, en masse (meaning armed and unarmed alike).
But back to your Logical Fallacy business! You claim that Ralaga is "Threatening to get [his] way...though force...Replacing one form of tyranny with another..."
Here's what Ralaga did say:


...we will remember the names of the politicians that tried to pass these foolish measures and systematically remove all of them (from) office by the power of vote alone.
See Link? There, in his summary, he states that 'we' will lawfully use the proper mechanism of law to enact changes 'we' seek. Tyranny and Force at their finest...


You wrap up the paragraph with not a counterpoint of fact or logic, but a DOUBLE Logically Fallacious Personal Incredulity/Strawman Argument!! We should give awards out for this schlitz!

Your statement "I find it absurd..." is classic P.I. language, in which you attempt to debase the arguments by taking a position of superiority though derision of the argument. No facts, no debate, no logic.
But why stop there?! You attach your P.I. to a 'summation' of Rala's statements. A summation that doesn't even twist the original statements; It just a strawman made up of some extreme viewpoint that was never presented!
The irony here is your first paragraph, in relation to your opening claim in para. 2, "You don't want to argue for legitimate reasons you just want to silence the opposition..."


That's what this is about right? You don't want to argue for legitimate reasons you just want to silence the opposition through force, or at the very least, threat of force. The only rationale I've heard out of this thread for 'Hi-Cap Mags' is to kill snakes and overthrow the government. A legitimate, democratically elected government I might add.

Again with that strawman argument that Rala wants to use force to silence opposition. At least your last two sentences don't contain any bad arguments. Just bad opinions, based on bad reading!
In fact Links, looking at your first post in this thread, I saw 5-6 different arguments based on bad logic...

 


...BUT WAIT! There's more! I am going to share a very special website with you, Links, because I really want you to be a better opponent. Perhaps you don't realize this, but all these logical fallacies completely undermine the point you are trying to make. A great debate revolves around honest, logical discourse using facts and reason. I would MUCH rather beat you in that arena than kick you around over bad logic!

yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
edit on 18-2-2013 by blamethegreys because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-2-2013 by blamethegreys because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Want to know why people don't want to have limits placed on their weapons??

Here...

Georgia Mom Defends home

Georgia mom blasts a bad guy, with a revolver, emptys it, and the guy gets up and leaves.

Maybe if she had 10/20/30 rounds, the guy wouldn't get back up, and the world would be a little safer.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
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.

A shotgun is more effective against snakes. Especially nests - a single shotgun blast can take out multiple snakes.


Originally posted by Hopechest
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.

That statement, I will agree with. Add wild hogs to that statement.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by blamethegreys
 


Thanks for all that. I was replying to you though. I still view it as a veiled threat though, 'an armed citizens voice is heard better than an unarmed citizens voice.' Why? Because they'll do something with those armaments? You're speaking strictly on the issue of guns when referring to that though, aren't you?

To some degree I can accept that. More importantly though, I still don't see any legitimate reason why anyone would need a magazine holding more than 10 rounds. Once again, the only reason I've heard is to overthrow the government because you should be equally armed.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Well that was the whole point it was put there. I can barrage you with historical quotes which put it in no uncertain terms.

And while 'overthrow' wouldn't be the goal in this day and age, I specifically used the term deter because that really is what these weapons (AND their round capacity) accomplish.

Did you see the story about how a WA legislator submitted a PDW ban, and tried to slip in a clause allowing yearly no-warrant 'home inspections' of all grandfathered PDW owners? Turning out we aren't that crazy...



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Some things about Hi-cap mags. So a shooter is going to have to use 10 or 15 round mags? Is that it. So what do you have? 10 30 round mags becomes 20 15 round mags. It takes but a second to change out mags and most folks will be running full speed before the first mag is empty. Really the only disatvantage to low-cap mags is a tactical one and at that in most cases no big deal. And for the much larger part the low-cap mag thing is simply an erosion of the tactical capacity of the 2nd amendment.

As well there are so many hi-cap mags out there that they could pop up anytime long after the the passage of such laws. Folks that have paied the cost for these mags are not going to toss them in the trash or turn them in to be sure. They will become contraband with a fine attached if you happen to be found with one in a state were they are not legal. In states were they are legal the hi-cap mags will flurish and be a steady source of flow into other states to be sold out of sight.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join