The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Arwon]

Seems a bit unfair not to give the other guy a sporting chance of getting you, anyway.

 

[Farm Boy]

Funny thing about rights: You get to exercise them no matter how terrible you might be at using that right effectively.

That's why they're up for debate. Gotta keep people not paying attention to healthcare, gotta keep the incentives not in getting the hispanics and the trash and the brothers and the whoeverthehell elses's into nursing instead of ubering insured tushies around and delivering them pizza. You really think any conversation about rights will end when the 0.00009463% are "addressed?" No, it'll be back to the nonright to hold a steering wheel and the newly discovered nonright to drink Mellow Yellow or the nonright to kill yourself, unless some arsewad doctor got paid to do it for you.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Keep in mind, I'm not saying someone wouldn't use 30 rounds while defending themselves from an animal. As you say, you use everything when you decide to use everything. It's not like you're going to stop after 10 shots to see if the charging bear is slowing down sufficiently

If I brought a bazooka to defend myself against bears, I would use it in the process of defending myself against bears. In retrospect, if you're too simplistic, it looks like the bazooka was necessary

But there are very few edge cases where 10 rounds wouldn't have been sufficient and 30 rounds is. And those edge cases, in their absolute rarity, don't justify that casualties are doubled during mass shooting incidents.

If you need 30 in the woods when 10 wouldn't do, maybe you should choose the option of staying home. The kids aren't allowed to, they have to go to school. In other words, one party is accepting risk. The other isn't.

With a AR15 it's not hard to imagine needing to dump an entire 30-round magazine to stop a charging grizzly or horny squach.

Chances are the bear is going to reach you before get more than a few shots off.

However if you end up in a general wilderness survival situation, a 30-round emergency magazine would be perfect for foraging small game and signaling help; As opposed to carrying multiple small magazines or loose cartridges that can more easily be damaged/lost.

If I was a serious hunter, I'd probably choose a semi-auto over a traditional "hunting rifle."

 

[Commodore]

Other than, perhaps grizzlies, What is going to be "hunting" you or any other hunter?

Depends on where you live. Bobcats are a threat to hunters where I am. Not so much because they see humans as prey, but rather they are extremely territorial animals and sometimes hunters cross into their territory. They aren't big, but they can be pretty sneaky and are very quick and nimble.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's tempting to pit vanishingly small inputs against vanishingly small inputs when some of them are so. very. loud. BECAUSE(hate made it so). But really, the right and the empowerment and the trust in people to be decent even when the LOUD is so very GODDAMN loud really is more important. Not so much for them. They have their wank job they get off on, but for you. And for the not so loud. Quietly masturbating in the corner to their preferred gender instead of "ammo" or "control" or whatever.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Depends on where you live. Bobcats are a threat to hunters where I am. Not so much because they see humans as prey, but rather they are extremely territorial animals and sometimes hunters cross into their territory. They aren't big, but they can be pretty sneaky and are very quick and nimble.

And how many times in the past 20 years have they attacked and injured a hunter?

 

[Commodore]

And how many times in the past 20 years have they attacked and injured a hunter?

How many times are you going to ask the same question before you get that I see what argument you are trying to make and I'm not going to entertain it?

 

[EgonSpengler]

I randomly stumbled over this, this morning:

U.C. Davis Law Review, Winter 1998 - "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment"

Both those who believe that the militia consists of everyone ready and willing to take up arms in an emergency, and those who believe that the militia consists of people who chose to join private organizations, believe that citizens make themselves militia members. The opposing view holds that the militia membership is defined not only by its members, but by lawful authority.

[...]The fundamental problem with the view that the Second Amendment mandates a universal militia is the Constitution itself. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress has the power to organize the militia.

[...]When Madison referred to "the militia" in the Second Amendment, he knew full well the term was already defined in the main body of the Constitution, and we must presume the members of the First Congress and the state legislatures knew this as well. Nothing in the Second Amendment changed Article I, Section 8. Indeed, Madison himself said that nothing in the Bill of Rights altered the Constitution. We cannot give "militia" a different meaning in the Second Amendment than that expressly given to it in the main body of the Constitution without violating cardinal principles of constitutional construction.

I actually don't agree with the philosophy of originalism in interpreting the Constitution (and it certainly isn't a "cardinal principle"), but I thought this was interesting. It reinforces my view that the self-declared, self-deployed "militias" aren't motivated by the usual, conservative interpretation of the Constitution, but rather one that allows them to do what they want to do. This article also goes into the history of the drafting of the Second Amendment as a tool for controlling slave populations, if you're interested in that.

 

[Lexicus]

How many times are you going to ask the same question before you get that I see what argument you are trying to make and I'm not going to entertain it?

 

[Birdjaguar]

How many times are you going to ask the same question before you get that I see what argument you are trying to make and I'm not going to entertain it?

That was sufficient. Thanks.

 

[El_Machinae]

If I was a serious hunter, I'd probably choose a semi-auto over a traditional "hunting rifle."

I'm not doubting the utility. I'm doubting that the utility bump between a 10-round magazine and a 30 round magazine is worth (let's say) a doubling of casualties when it comes to mass shooting incidents.

BJ is trying to create a ratio of dead night club tours / person saved. It's hard to divide by zero. Especially when you realize the true denominator is people saved by 30 round magazines that wouldn't have found 10 rounds sufficient.

Because commodore doesn't care about the ratio, any defense against regarding the utility is just window washing. He's defending the principle. He wants the right, consequences be damned.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Funny thing about rights: You get to exercise them no matter how terrible you might be at using that right effectively.

Lemme just go yell Fire! or more appropriately, Active Shooter! in a movie theater to you know, to exercise my rights.

 

[El_Machinae]

Or wear body armor and a long gun into Walmart shortly after a mass shooting.

 

[Dekker]

Or wear body armor and a long gun into Walmart shortly after a mass shooting.

It is his right. What I don't understand is why Commodore frowned upon that occassion.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Or wear body armor and a long gun into Walmart shortly after a mass shooting.

It is his right. What I don't understand is why Commodore frowned upon that occassion.

I'm curious why some other armed citizen didn't just shoot him preemptively.

 

[Commodore]

Lemme just go yell Fire! or more appropriately, Active Shooter! in a movie theater to you know, to exercise my rights.

You're better than this. Doing the above is using your right to violate the rights of others, and gets punished accordingly. The same happens with guns. If you go shoot someone, the legal systems takes care of it. Calling for the elimination of our right to bear arms because an extremely small minority of people misuse it is just as ridiculous as calling for free speech to be eliminated because someone yelled "fire!" in a movie theater.

Plus, as I said before "shall not be infringed" was deliberately placed in the wording of the 2nd Amendment and not in any other right in the Bill of Rights. To me, that's a clear indication that limitations on other rights are a-okay, but the right to bear arms must remain untouched.

It is his right. What I don't understand is why Commodore frowned upon that occassion.

Just because I think he had a right to do what he did, doesn't mean I don't also think he was an idiot for doing it.

I'm curious why some other armed citizen didn't just shoot him preemptively.

Because they would be facing a murder charge if they did. Kinda hard to make a case for self defense when the person you shoot isn't actually pointing a weapon at anyone. That, and as I said before, most people who carry in public aren't actually willing to use their gun.

Because commodore doesn't care about the ratio, any defense against regarding the utility is just window washing. He's defending the principle. He wants the right, consequences be damned.

I know you mean this in a negative way, but yeah that pretty much sums up my position. I've stated before that I believe our rights, all of them, are more important than life itself. Without rights, life simply isn't worth living. The fact that others think otherwise is absolutely baffling to me.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Because they would be facing a murder charge if they did. Kinda hard to make a case for self defense when the person you shoot isn't actually pointing a weapon at anyone.

Pffft. Cops do it all the time. Surely "good guy with a gun" deserves the same privileges.

 

[Lexicus]

limitations on other rights are a-okay,

So, would you say that you "support free speech, but..."???

I know you mean this in a negative way, but yeah that pretty much sums up my position. I've stated before that I believe our rights, all of them, are more important than life itself. Without rights, life simply isn't worth living. The fact that others think otherwise is absolutely baffling to me.

Would you sacrifice your children for your rights or just yourself?

 

[Akka]

I know you mean this in a negative way, but yeah that pretty much sums up my position. I've stated before that I believe our rights, all of them, are more important than life itself. Without rights, life simply isn't worth living. The fact that others think otherwise is absolutely baffling to me.

I might understand the theorical idea for rights that are inherent to humanity take on life (like freedom, equality and so on).
But to being able to bear firearms ?
That's just a very weird, US-specific right that has nothing to do with the root of mankind of with happiness or with dignity or whatever. To value it more than life (actually, to value it at all) is what I find so completely baffling. Life not worth living if you can't go legally buy and walk with a Colt sounds beyond caricature.

 

[Lexicus]

Life not worth living if you can't go legally buy and walk with a Colt sounds beyond caricature.

Seriously, read some of those gun-industry trade publications that Commodore undoubtedly subscribes to and you will begin to see why he is so unhinged.