Can we have an honest, respectful discussion about guns in America?

Do you think a shotgun has a shot pattern of a blunderbus?

What is the shot pattern of OO buck at 20 feet?

I thought you pretended to know something about guns?

 

I say I am in agreement with you. And my position is simple.

The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution and it is not easily altered. If we want to infringe on the rights of people to bear arms then the people who want to need to convince others that they need to elect people that will propose a bill or vote on a bill that can be passed to the president and signed into law.

It seems everyone wants to make an end run around that because they can't convince people to elect those officers to the Congress or the presidency. This should be a red flag that it goes against the will of the people. And any law that infringes on our rights to bear arms should be struck down until the second amendment becomes amended.

 

Exactly what does such translate into, when the matter pertains to trying to figure out what is and is not a prohibited firearm, when there is no definition that can be cited and reviewed by those tasked with enforcing the prohibition?

 

How about 50? 100 feet? From the top of the stairs? In the right hands, a shotgun can be a good tactical weapon for home defense in certain instances. In the wrong hands you could easily injure or kill a family member and really tear up your house. In most cases, a small caliber semiauto pistol (which you want to ban) with a low powered JHP is the way to go. Night sights will be helpful as well. Along with training and range time, of course.

 

Should be obvious. It means that during the debate about which firearms should be prohibited in order to address this onslaught of mass shootings, saving lives must be the main criteria. And not some imaginary "need" for a certain type of destructive weapon. If we go too far, we need to do that in favor of the option that saves the most lives. In other words: mistakenly classifying some particular 300 year-old musket as an "assault weapon" is not as bad as failing to include a 300-round per minute machine gun.

 

Oddly it doesn't take that much time to be proficient with shooting the thing people forget to do this practice drawing from concealment.

When I was in the police academy the way they told me to draw and shoot was really quite strange I thought. it made sense when they explained. You wouldn't hold the gun in the Weaver position or even with both hands. But you did place the magazine well against your ribs and extend your weak arm out to keep them from grabbing your gun. I practiced this. I even took some hapkido classes where my opponent was supposed to try and grab a dummy gun from me. The instructor couldn't he been practicing this martial art for 25 years.

A long gun at close range is too easy to deflect or take away.


Though I have my shotgun and I keep slugs in it my first weapon of choice is my 45.

 

Voice of experience always adds valuable elements to the discussion.

 

And yet, even if this is the main criteria to warrant the debate, there is no way of actually proving that any course of action will achieve such a result. It can be suggested that a course of action might result in such, but it is nothing more than unguided, unproven hypothesis and supposition. It amounts to nothing, and the only way to know for certain is to actually enact such a proposal, and analyze all relevant data thirty years from now. How many individuals will be murdered in the time being when the data is being compiled to see if a measurable, significant result can be had?

Name a weapon that is not destructive by its very nature.

Eighty to ninety percent of all homicides are committed by those who have established criminal records, as per the findings of the FBI. Those who are career criminals, with numerous felony convictions, are responsible for murdering more individuals in a given year than anyone else. If saving lives is truly the most crucial aspect, why not support the execution of career criminals, rather than continually releasing them back into society where they can do the most harm? It is no different than the medical treatment of cancer for the purpose of saving the patient.

How many individuals will be victimized by such a course of action? How many innocent individuals will suffer felony convictions in the name of what is being proposed?

 

Depends of what constitutes "proof".

The pen

Among many many reasons, because we don't have the technology to do that. But that's a whole different subject.

Innocent individuals will suffer felony convictions?

I've heard many absurd things attributed to banning assault weapons, but producing judges that would find people who didn't break the law gulty on a felony charge is definitely a new one.

 

Something that can readily be held up and demonstrated to show that Action A does indeed lead to Reaction B, rather than suggesting such.

Such has led to the death of millions over the course of history, anytime an order is signed authorizing such a course of action. It is with the pen that a war is declared.

Pray tell what sort of technology would be needed to place career criminals on death row? What sort of technology would be needed to reclassify their criminal status as being eligible for the death penalty?

Correct, by making them criminals by default, through de facto legislation, automatically declaring something that is currently legal, to be illegal long after the fact. And with no legally codified explanation to define what is and is not a prohibited firearm, there is no way for someone to know if their firearms are still legal, or if they are automatically illegal, until after they have been arrested.

 

Why yes. Lets alll put our heads up Trumps ass like the right does, and forget the violence being perpetrated by the alt-right. Just blame it all on the "left".

 

The future democrat voters are killing each other an at insane pace yet the libs couldn’t care less. They only want to stop law abiding citizens with the right to carry from owning guns and they are either corrupt and want us disarmed to take over or too stupid to face reality. We are at more risk of tyranny when our politicians are so blatantly corrupt

 

Certainly since my response was not "vague". The Constitution only orders the right to own weapons to those who are members of the Militia, not the common folk. They understood what people like you cannot. The right to own a weapon, Constitutionally speaking, was for those who were willing to defend the country. Other rights were those not required to be stated in law. Those are "Natural Rights", and cannot be taken away by government.

Or you could shoot him with your 9mm which happens more often then one would like to admit. Or Timmy could find your pistol, and kill his best friend, or his brother. But then you will say "keep the gun locked up" which makes it highly improbable that you could get it out in time too prevent the home invasion. Kids do not have a tendency to be able to handle a shotgun as they do a pistol.

 

Actually, they are not baseless. Studies have shown that over 90% of the right wing supports war, yet none of those actually join to fight that war. And I have seen very few instances where the right wing actually joins a Neighborhood Watch. They leave it up to the people that live there, and most often those folks are from the left.

 

Once again, I need to remind you that I am not the topic of this thread.

 

Still nothing but baseless assumptions. Do you actually have an argument? Or are you just going to continue bleating your snarky little ad hominem?

 

You'll have to be more specific than that. We need to keep the context in mind. I mean, this is "proof" as requested by somebody that sides with those who would not consider thousands of scientific peer-reviewed studies about AGW proof. Or that would deny that the assessment of all our Intelligence agencies is proof and prefer to believe Putin.. Or that still demand proof that our President is a liar even after tapes are played again and again of him saying that his inauguration was the biggest in history, or that he won in the biggest landslide....

So I ask again: what is "proof" to you? Give me an example. Something like showing what "proof" there was before a speed limit was put into law, that it would reduce car accidents, for example. Or that restricting where people can smoke would reduce the number of smokers. I don't know... something like that that you would consider "proof" before the law was actually enacted.

Looks like you completely lost track of your own question. Looks like I need to remind you. You asked: "Name a weapon that is not destructive by its very nature.". I say again: the pen. The fact that you can use a pen to either do those things, or to poke somebody's eye out does not make it "destructive by it's very nature" That is not the nature of the pen. Nobody has ever designed a pen thinking about how to better use it to sign a declaration of war.

But, of course, your only purpose in asking that was to try to move our attention away from the point. But it's interesting that even in that it flopped.

We lack a technology to put them to death that is compliant with the 8th Amendment.

Again: another attempt on your part to draw our attention away. Why is that? It's as if you weren't feeling comfortable in the matter discussed and were desperately seeking some way to change it.

So, we can explain (though not excuse) this comment by your ignorance of the concept of ex post facto laws.

Now we know for sure why 90% of your message was a desperate attempt to change the subject.

 

I'm not responsible for what you know or don't know. Most guns used in homicides are stolen.

 

I know every day huh? The news is just filled with people shooting at Maxine Waters and Hillary Clinton. In your imagination!

 

"If you banned all guns tomorrow and told everyone they had turn to theirs in, most law abiding folks - including me - would comply. But the real cause of this problem - today and in my mythical gun-free future - are those who would not comply. Therefore, it seems to make little practical sense to remove firearms from the hands of the law-abiding. Sadly if a person is intent on doing harm, they will likely find a way. And two days ago in Texas, it did indeed take a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun."


If you are pro to handing in your gun, is shutting down gun manufacturing and gun related manufacturing a possible way to help make the Earth a gun free Earth?

What good is a gun if there is no ammunition for it?

The Constitution could be an excuse for Capitalism. Yet then again it might not be. The original guns, the second Amendment, was created for just what you have stated. They were trying to preserve their lives. They needed to have guns in order to defend any possible attacks from non-US people.

So it was started as a defense. They needed firearms to protect themselves and their livelihood from being destroyed. Seems as if The U.S has not come too far from that ideology and truth of living in The U.S.

And given the fact that the 'militia' or able bodied persons in public life, are NOT well ordered, guns might be more of a 'harm' than a true defense.

If the militia is not well regulated and they choose to begin causing troubles, what good is a gun fight? We are not living in The wild West.

But because both sides of the Militia, both the well regulated and non well regulated can obtain guns, what might solve any possible gun fire? The cessation of ammunition and gun sales might.. But this would infringe on individual rights and still have the second Amendment alive and well.

What does The Supreme Court have to say about this matter? Or Congress or Senate or State Legislatures?


Here is another question.. Out of all the working guns that are in the U.S., how many of them are registered and legal?

I am only supposing that your gun(s) are legal and registered with your State. But even if all the guns were legal and registered, how easy can a person go berserk with a legal and properly self registered gun?

And if a person should relocate States, what Laws pertain to re-registering your gun within that State? A transference of sorts? Or can a person have legal gun ownership statuses in many different States at any given 1 time?

 

You will never eliminate guns from the earth.

 

Many people just can't get their focus where it belongs on this issue. There has never been a gun that killed a person, unless another person aimed it and pulled the trigger.
We have people, just as every nation in the world has, which desire to kill others- not just people they know or have issues with, but anybody. The worst of these always have psychological conditions, one of which is called a sociopath. That is a person with no feeling whatsoever for the life or pain of others, and similarly no respect whatsoever for the law, other than to avoid allowing themselves to be caught. This is the kind of person that only the victim can defend themselves from, and it is one of the reasons people must always have the options to own firearms without undue restrictions.

In 1974 in Wichita kansas, a man came into the house of a family named Otero- took control, and over a few hours, killed them all. His name was Dennis Rader- a family man who attended church, even volunteered there. His wife and children as well as his neighbors had no idea who he was in his alter ego. As a killer, he called himself "BTK" meaning Bind-Torture-Kill. He continued with occasional individual killings, stalking total strangers and killing them, for a total of 10. One of the things he did was sent taunts to the police and news. Then, he stopped. for many years, didn't kill again and nobody heard a thing. Eventually an anniversary story of the killings prompted him to begin taunting again. By accident, he sent police a message on a computer disc, unaware that there was traceable information on the disc, and he was caught. Kansas death penalty had been suspended during the years he killed, so execution was not a possibility, and he remains in prison.

Now what you should see is the courtroom personal confession Rader made, responding to the judge's questions. He remembered every detail of every kill- and described each step with the same emotion you would have sharpening a pencil. Watch this video, and see how absolutely cold a true sociopath is. Then ask yourself how you would protect yourself if he came to kill you.

 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Not true.

And most guns used in mass murders were bought legally and recent to the attack

 

LOL, I just keep pointing out to you the fallacy of your argument, and you just keep whining.

"Once again, I need to remind you that I am not the topic of this thread."

Is that not what you say? Problem is your beliefs are the topic of this thread. However, your own words betray you:

"It should be no secret that I am of the pro Second-Amendment side of the argument. I proudly display a .45ACP 1911 model handgun in my avatar. At the core of my beliefs - and those of many of my fellow travelers - is that each person must be first and foremost endowed with the right to self-preservation. Without this, all other rights about which we argue so vociferously and value so deeply are moot. Freedom of speech is meaningless when you are dead. As is freedom of religion, association, peaceable assembly, interstate commerce, and all other rights we hold dear."

 

Rabid gun fanciers appear incapable of offering a coherent explanation why firearm fatalities in the US dwarf those in all other advanced nations, or have any proposals to seriously confront the unacceptable status quo.

Surrendering to the human slaughter is not an option for most other Americans.