[ritter]

Cog,

No limits?

Cog,

50 cal and over?
Bazookas?
Shoulder launched air to air missiles?
Personal tanks?
Fully armed F-16s?

The Founders were heavily influenced by the philosopher John Locke from which the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were derived. The basic concept is that of self-ownership. Meaning, that you have the right as a human to protect yourself. Such a right does not derive or is established by government but is inherent in being a human being. A gift from God if you are religiously bent, but can be derived by an atheist who believes in the value of humans.

Most people in the world recognize the right of owning oneself and asserting that right to prevent others from doing you harm. The most efficient way to assert that right is by use of a weapon. The Founders did not specify the type of weapon to be used for self-defense of oneself and by extension the community at large. Arms were understood as those arms that could be employed by an individual in defense of an individual or in the case of a group of individuals in an ad hoc militia. Defense of the community or nation if you will.

My right to self-defense or of that of my group or community must have discretion though. I can create no greater harm to other innocents through my use of my right to self-defense. The use of chemical, nuclear, or area weapons such as a B-2 bomber would not follow under the category of all human rights being of the same equality. Such weapons do not discriminate between the guilty and the non-guilty. With respect to the intent of the Second Amendment and my personal beliefs about defense of one self, any weapon capable of being employed by an individual and whose use targets only those who would usurp my rights to self, would be protected.

People always bring up nuclear weapons or bombers when they want to infringe on some individual right by the use of the extreme case.

Cog,

That was very well stated. Thank you.

I don't want to wade too far into this but think background checks=good. Other personal arms should be available to non prohibited people (that includes arms currently regulated by tax stamp and not typically available over the counter). Concealed carry should be a universal right provided you pass the background check. I'd prefer that people be trained but several states are in the process of demonstrating that such a requirement isn't necessary to safe carry. Bump stocks are accessories and not integral to a rifle's function and are intended to circumvent the full auto laws already on the books. I have no problem with them being regulated or "banned" as they are not integral to the function (unlike optics, sights, magazines, etc.).

There is a reason the right to keep and bear arms follows immediately after the right to free speech, press and religion. Sometimes, you've got to fight for your life and sometimes you've got to fight for those freedoms. This coming from a tree hugging, social service-oriented, environmentally aware liberal.

[Shaved Monkey]

Wasnt the constitution written in a time when people didnt have semi automatics

Does the First Amendment only cover communication delivered by quill and pen? Specious argument.

Was it just a piece of paper written by men doing their best at the time with the limited knowledge they had .
I assume they were only men so weren't infallible and now other men freely interpret their versions of how they interpret it in a modern society with military grade weapons

[onlooker]

I ask Cog and others, how many of the injured and killed in the Vegas massacre own guns? Did owning a gun or guns protect them from being a victim? Look in an ideal world, I believe we should not have guns period. We do not live in an ideal world. So the practical issue is what limits can be imposed and on who. They say the perfect can be the enemy of the good, well gun laws and their enforcement will not ever be perfect but that does not mean we do not need them.

[Newfie]

Cog

It's always more interesting when we get to the fundamentals. Well expressed thoughts.

If i were to read the following paragraph in isolation, it in the context of your previous comments, I would take it as a good explanation of why we should ban full automatics and bump stocks etc. In fact I think it's a good defense of the 2 nd amendment and an ice definition of its limits.

A full auto and a bump stock both sacrifice precision for indiscriminate destruction. I would expect someone to use this very logic to support restriction of all hand guns as they are inherently less accurate, and more libel to be used indiscriminately.

I'm sorry but I think you made a very strong case against your position.

"My right to self-defense or of that of my group or community must have discretion though. I can create no greater harm to other innocents through my use of my right to self-defense. The use of chemical, nuclear, or area weapons such as a B-2 bomber would not follow under the category of all human rights being of the same equality. Such weapons do not discriminate between the guilty and the non-guilty. With respect to the intent of the Second Amendment and my personal beliefs about defense of one self, any weapon capable of being employed by an individual and whose use targets only those who would usurp my rights to self, would be protected. "

[ROCKMAN]

KJ - "I actually don't care if they ban bump stocks or not". Every time I see comments about full autos and bump stocks (which I didn't even know existed until now) I think back to a comment a gunny made many decades ago. Essentially that the govt arming grunts with weapons with a full auto selection was one of the worst mistakes it ever made.

He told his men that if he ever caught one of them firing full auto they better have a damn good reason or he would knee them in the balls. And with a reputation for doing that when some grunt pissed him off they knew he wasn't kidding.

His philosophy: you sight your target and squeeze off a round. If you miss do it again. If you ever carried a full belt of ammo you know how heavy it is so you know there's a limit how much ammo you can carry. Empty all your clips in 2 or 3 minutes and run out of ammo: you're about as useless as tits on a witch. LOL.

And how many semi fire rifles has the Rockman owned? None. One bolt action for nostalgic reasons: a 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser produced in 1917. All others were single shots. Always liked Rugers but been to cheap to collect many of them. Even my hunting pistol was a single shots: Thomson Contender.

Of course shotguns are a very different matter: need all the shots I can get to knock down a dove flying 100 mph. OK, maybe not that fast but it sure seems like it. LOL. I wouldn't even hunt the little bastards if they weren't my favorite tasting game critter.

[Newfie]

I ask Cog and others, how many of the injured and killed in the Vegas massacre own guns? Did owning a gun or guns protect them from being a victim? Look in an ideal world, I believe we should not have guns period. We do not live in an ideal world. So the practical issue is what limits can be imposed and on who. They say the perfect can be the enemy of the good, well gun laws and their enforcement will not ever be perfect but that does not mean we do not need them.

Onlooker,

Your ideal world and mine are different. Also I think your concept of guns and their purpose and mine are worlds apart.

In my perfect world everyone would be slower to have guns. Those guns would be used to secure food. No one would use those guns to harm another human being.

Frankly I despise the orevelabt idea of guns as tools for killing humans. However, it's clear that My view is a distinct minority view. That was not always the case. Not sure when it changed in the USA, but it has been within my lifetime.

I don't like living in a society that views guns predominantly as human killing devices, it means that society is twisted and violent and recognizes the need for external restraint.

This is one of the ways that I feel deeply I've outlived my time on Earth. This species has evolved into something dispicable. Not all, far too many. Living away from urban areas and media has not improved my view of hmanity.

[Newfie]

Something I picked up on Quora.

"The percentage is entirely down to what individuals are involved and their marksmanship, as previously stated in the Vietnam war the american troops required roughly 50 000 rounds to kill a single enemy combatant whilst the marine snipers on average used 1.33 rounds per kill. It is the very reason why during ww2 the German army was predominantly armed with kar98ks even though the stg44 and g43 were a far superior weapons in terms of combat effectiveness for open combat(both were issued to more elite and trigger disciplined troops until the end of the war.). The German infantry were forced to make ever round count as they knew they had less capacity for follow up shots. As a result the munitions expended by the German were considerably lower than the allied forces. This is the reason why most militaries were slow to adopt semi and fully automatic weapons.
5.8k Views · "

[onlooker]

Newfie, I do not think your views and mine are that far apart. The issue of having any guns is nuanced. What is not, is the issue that any citizen of the US has an inherent right to have and own a gun. This in my view should be not be an inherent right. Cog, speaks of the right to self defense. Well in a world without guns or with people not willing or wishing to harm others, we would not need any such protection. Basically, you and I yearn for a more peaceful society. Instead of one in which the Wild West or Law of the jungle reigns and predators and prey are the calculus being used.

[Newfie]

And this. Your tax dollars at work.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/jonathantu ... illed/amp/

There is an amazing (and startling) statistic out of Iraq and Afghanistan: the United States has fired an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed. The U.S. is going through so much ammo that manufacturers are struggling to keep up. In another milestone, U.S. troops in Afghanistan now surpass the number in Iraq.

The U.S. military are now importing ammo from Israel to keep up the rate of fire.

US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan – an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed – that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that our forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition a year — a level of use that has more than doubled in five years. The report states:

“The Department of Defense’s increased requirements for small- and medium-calibre ammunitions have largely been driven by increased weapons training requirements, dictated by the army’s transformation to a more self-sustaining and lethal force – which was accelerated after the attacks of 11 September, 2001 – and by the deployment of forces to conduct recent US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

[Newfie]

Onlooker,

The problem isnt guns. The problem is we live in a society where virtually no one respects the law from the lowest ghetto rat to the highest offices in industry and politics. Our cities flaunt the Federal law with sanctuary legislation. In Texas the majority of construction workers are illegals and 100% of the company owners are by rights fellons for hiring them. Our congress did not proscecute the Wall Street. Etc and so forth.

Our society is rotten. We are headed in a very bad direction.

You would be wise to be armed. Unless you have enough cash to hire protection. It's the way we are.

[Cog]

Going back to Rockman's discussion about fully automatic fire. Machine guns have been an integral part of the infantry for over a century. In the defense, they disrupt attacks. In the attack they suppress the defenders ability to conduct aimed fire at your forces. For the individual rifleman, as I understand it the M-4/M16 no longer has fully automatic capability but has a 3 round burst setting instead. I might be wrong about that, been out for a long time. But machine guns are still employed with the infantry because they have their uses.

What this whole legislation is attempting to do is limit the rate of fire for a rifle. As has already been demonstrated you don't need a device to duplicate something close to full auto. The agenda in play to eliminate semi-automatic rifles period. Sen Feinstein during the 1994-2004 year ban on AR's and AK's was quite clear about her desire to confiscate these weapons and not merely ban their manufacture and sale. Magazine limits will be their next target and then the rifle itself. Pointless exercise except to make millions of us current owners felons. As is the case in New York and California already.

If as the left believes that Trump is literally Hitler, and can't wait to march all lefties into camps, doesn't make a lot of sense to embrace gun bans and confiscation, now does it?

[Newfie]

Cog,

Where you left orbit was in supporting full auto machine guns.

You want them out in the hands of the anti-fa?

Your are confusing when you shift positions as you are doing.

[Cog]

I want every lawful person to own whatever suits them. That includes Antifa, Communists, BLM, and any other left wing group. A gun is harmless in and of itself. I'm not in the business of trying to dictate what rights you can exercise just because you believe differently than I do. Keep your bullets on your side of the fence and I'll do the same and we can live happily ever after.

Maximum individual freedom without harming others is what this country is all about. Or at least what it was designed to be all about.

[Shaved Monkey]

Yet the 100s of people who got shot didnt have the freedom to enjoy the concert because of 1 nuts freedom to have a lot of semi automatic weapons

[Cog]

Yet the 100s of people who got shot didnt have the freedom to enjoy the concert because of 1 nuts freedom to have a lot of semi automatic weapons

But millions of other Americans enjoyed their freedom to exercise their Second Amendment rights, because we don't let the actions of a nut dictate our rights. No one said freedom does not have associated risk.

[Shaved Monkey]

Yet the 100s of people who got shot didnt have the freedom to enjoy the concert because of 1 nuts freedom to have a lot of semi automatic weapons

But millions of other Americans enjoyed their freedom to exercise their Second Amendment rights, because we don't let the actions of a nut dictate our rights. No one said freedom does not have associated risk.

Is being paranoid about everyone having a gun so you go and get a gun too really freedom ?

Sounds like a paranoia security tax

[Cog]

Feels like freedom to me to own what I want. Maybe its different where you live.


But on a side note about what this is really about. Rep Pelosi hopes that a bump stock ban is the "slippery slope" that many of us gun owners fear it is. The left never tires of wanting to ban all guns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y-FFKntFc0

[vtsnowedin]

And this. Your tax dollars at work.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/jonathantu ... illed/amp/

There is an amazing (and startling) statistic out of Iraq and Afghanistan: the United States has fired an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed. The U.S. is going through so much ammo that manufacturers are struggling to keep up. In another milestone, U.S. troops in Afghanistan now surpass the number in Iraq.

I believe that report was based on a 2005 GAO report which has the same 1.8 billion round small caliber figure. So it is certainly out of date. When you think about it 1.35 million active service members using 1.8 billion rounds in a year comes out to just 25 rounds a week each. Now of course there are a lot or rear echelon paper pushers that don't carry a weapon day to day but each machine gunner in training or in the field eats up several of their ammo rations.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05687.pdf

[Cog]

1.8 billion rounds. Now I don't know what the military spends per round of 5.56. I pay around 30 cents so probably less. But lets use that figure. $540 million more or less. Small part of the military budget.

[Newfie]

I want every lawful person to own whatever suits them.

Here I lies several problems.

First I share your desire. I also want to be 6'4", 200 lbs, 39yo billionaire for eternity. Desires run afoul of reality.

While perhaps the majority of Americans are "lawful" there is a significant portion that are not. You recognize that fact by wanting a firearm for self defense. If all were lawfull there would be no need for self defense.

I hold there are more than enough laws on the books already. The problem is that we can not, do not, will not enforce these existing laws.

I hold that until we can enforce the laws it makes no sense to legislate any more, either to further restrict guns or to allow full autos. (To not cloud the issue I'm ignoring bump sticks for the moment.)

So in some sense we are in broad agreement over allowing Lawful citizens to exercise their rights. (I'm also going to ignore the LV shooter for the moment again to concentrate on the broader issue.)

While mass shooters are a hot topic we bob understand the far greater number of deaths, and crimes, comes from the lawLESS cohort. The hot bed is the young black male cohort. However that is aided and abetted by third party purchasers who channel guns into that market through straw purchases and other means.

How do you intend to control the guns in the hands of the lawLESS population? How do you intend to limit their access to weapons?