• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

  • Total voters
    69
ThePlayDrive said:
It's funny to me that you think you're getting me to 'realize' something. I understand your position. I just disagree with it. This seems incredibly difficult for you to handle as you have to dismiss my disagreements by insulting my intelligence instead of dealing with people who think differently. Your argument is that my stance has the potential to be abused by politicians who have a political agenda and you assume that anyone who supports a stance that has the potential of abuse must want the abuse and is therefore, anti-gun and anti-second amendment.

The problem with this argument, however, is not only that it relies on too many assumptions about the people making the argument, but that it relies on the ridiculous premise that laws should not be made if they have the potential to be abused. Almost every law in the country has the potential to be abused and at some point they will be abused until those who do so are challenged by the public as is done every single day in elections, trials and other venues. In fact, I dare you to name a single law that cannot be abused. You won't be able to. And yet I doubt you would argue that the fact that any and every law can be abused is a reason to abolish all of them because that would be a stupid argument to make.

Now you might say then that the solution I propose offers a greater chance for abuse than other laws because, as you've said earlier, "psychiatry and psychology are subjective". This subjectivity might lead to greater chances of abuse because one can interpret what constitutes a "dangerous" mental disorder quite broadly. However, the same is true for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Both can be restricted by the government and what constitutes a necessary reason to do so requires an immense amount of subjectivity. And even further, the last I checked there wasn't an entire field of research dedicated to determining which sidewalks are appropriate for protests like there is for determining who has the mental capacity of a 2 year old. And yet, we still have those restrictions on speech and when the public feels they are being abused, we take them to court or vote for another person like we do for every single law in our country.

So, in other words, you're going to have to come up with a better argument than, "But the government might abuse it", because that applies to every law, and so by your logic, no laws should exist which is nonsense.
Click to expand...
That's a whole lotta disagreeing for a guy who is "pro-second". Too bad you're wrong, but you can disagree all you want.
 
So no argument then. Thank you for your time.
 
So, a quick question for TPD and LMR:

To preface, I know little about firearms, having never fired one in my life (really!), and the only knowledge I have is from reading/listening to people.

The setting:

If, for example, I had the option to visit a local gun shop.

At this gun shop, I was able to submit to a 15-min background check, whereupon I could walk out with a .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun and 500 rounds of ammo for it, of varying types, along with a laser sight attachment, a shoulder holster, and two gun safes, one for my car and one for my place of residence (I’m making this up as I go along, not sure if all this is necessary).

Granted, this would probably cost me a thousand or so bucks that I don’t have (I only have a vague idea how much these things cost), but we’re talking examples here.

The question: Is this acceptable to you, and/or what would you prefer went differently
 
The Mark said:
So, a quick question for TPD and LMR:

To preface, I know little about firearms, having never fired one in my life (really!), and the only knowledge I have is from reading/listening to people.

The setting:

If, for example, I had the option to visit a local gun shop.

At this gun shop, I was able to submit to a 15-min background check, whereupon I could walk out with a .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun and 500 rounds of ammo for it, of varying types, along with a laser sight attachment, a shoulder holster, and two gun safes, one for my car and one for my place of residence (I’m making this up as I go along, not sure if all this is necessary).

Granted, this would probably cost me a thousand or so bucks that I don’t have (I only have a vague idea how much these things cost), but we’re talking examples here.

The question: Is this acceptable to you, and/or what would you prefer went differently
Click to expand...
I would prefer a 24 hour wait period, but that's fine yes.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Exactly, just like Freedom of Speech can (and should) have limits so can (and should) the Right to Bear Arms. Consequently, the idea that supporting limits is "anti-second amendment" or "anti-gun" is nonsensical. And as I said earlier, hopefully the lawmakers and judges responsible for determining those limits will consult with experts on the particular topic who have the most evidence based arguments.
Click to expand...

a stupid analogy

speech restriction involves USE, gun restrictions involve POSSESSION

you cannot scream FIRE in a crowded theater (unless its a movie set or there is a fire)

You of course POSSESS the ability to scream fire to your heart's content in your own basement, or in the middle of some deserted woods.

Gun restrictions are akin to saying you can never scream fire

and everything WRONG you can USE a gun for is ALREADY illegal
 
The Mark said:
So, a quick question for TPD and LMR:

To preface, I know little about firearms, having never fired one in my life (really!), and the only knowledge I have is from reading/listening to people.

The setting:

If, for example, I had the option to visit a local gun shop.

At this gun shop, I was able to submit to a 15-min background check, whereupon I could walk out with a .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun and 500 rounds of ammo for it, of varying types, along with a laser sight attachment, a shoulder holster, and two gun safes, one for my car and one for my place of residence (I’m making this up as I go along, not sure if all this is necessary).

Granted, this would probably cost me a thousand or so bucks that I don’t have (I only have a vague idea how much these things cost), but we’re talking examples here.

The question: Is this acceptable to you, and/or what would you prefer went differently
Click to expand...
The only thing is that larger rounds tend to be more expensive, you are going to be spending roughly a buck a bullet, maybe a buck and a half depending on what you get. You don't need 500 for the range unless you plan to spend the day there, ditto for the sights. If it's for defense you don't even really need the laser sight so that's extra expense, I don't know that you need a gun safe for your car, but if the law says you don't why spend the extra $$. As far as I'm concerned the BG check is a compromise but what can you do, if you pass it get what you need.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I would prefer a 24 hour wait period, but that's fine yes.
Click to expand...

why? do you know that the "heat of passion" is such that you are not in the heat of passion if you actually take time to go to a gun shop and fill out the paper work. The entire reason for a waiting period (other than the HASSLE honest people) was to try to kill off gun shows
 
TurtleDude said:
why? do you know that the "heat of passion" is such that you are not in the heat of passion if you actually take time to go to a gun shop and fill out the paper work. The entire reason for a waiting period (other than the HASSLE honest people) was to try to kill off gun shows
Click to expand...
And yet he claims to be "pro-second".
 
joko104 said:
If the intruder has a gun and suprises you - you die whether you have a gun or not. If you can't hit and knock someone down with a rubber bullet or bean bag, a metal bullet wouldn't do you any good either.

It is in fact known far more likely that shootings in a home most likely 1.) kill your own child 2.) is a child finding your gun and killing him/herself or a friend 3.) Kills a neighbor or friend and 4.) kills your spouse or yourself.

Also, depending on the state, you can't just kill an 11 year old burglarizing your house. Rubber bullets are a great defense in face of an minor aged, unarmed intruder. In fact, that unarmed intruder actually might still kill you, but if you're an mature adult man and the intruder an unarmed young teenager, a grand jury might not see it as "self defense" but a punitive killing - especially if you shot the kid multiple times with a para-military assault rifle.

A first-shot rubber bullet gives you more options and time to gather your senses. If you can't defend yourself in your home that way, the fact is you can't defense yourself otherwise.

As a true LOL, I know a very young, small and seemingly vulnerable fish and wildlife officer who on occasion will come across highly abusive drunk hunters or fisherman who basically become both intimidating, abusive and with her sensing a growing danger to herself being alone in the middle of nowhere with those men armed. She carried two side arms and is well practiced at drawing both. She found that if she pops one in the chest with a rubber 45 while then sighting the others down - that semi-auto adjusted specifically for the recoil of those bullets, and with the "real bullet" gun in her other hand - they become very extra "cooperative."

It takes a while for them to even figure out she hadn't killed one of them and absolutely believe her then as she shouts "drop your shotguns and get on facedown on the ground or I WILL kill you!" - them believing she just blew one of them away. Yet a real bullet would not be justified nor necessary. Rubber bullets cover that middle ground and allow extra control options and safeguards of either insufficient or excessive action.

Getting hit by a rubber bullet is like being hit by a sledge hammer.

You need to really ask yourself is your goal to defend yourself in the way least likely to also avoid innocent death by accident - or do you just want to kill intruders?
Click to expand...

Your post confirms to me you really have almost no-if any-training in this subject. If I have a pistol and you have a rubber bullet gun if you don't hit me in the forehead, the chest or the groin you are gonna die. and remember, you won't be looking for ME with that silly rubber bullet gun, rather you are going to be defending against me-in other words you are gonna be reacting. And I am really fast-like draw and shoot 3 shots in the a pie plate at 10 yards in less than 1.5 seconds. And since I am the hunter, I will have my weapon out in Low ready-now the time is down to .7 or so seconds.

bad scenario
 
The Mark said:
Seems unnecessarily long.

What is the purpose of that length of time?
Click to expand...
1) to impose costs on a would be gun owner involving travel etc

2) in imposing costs to hassle the would be gun owner hoping to prevent a sale

3) to make sales at one day gun shows or second day sales at weekend gun shows far less attractive
 
The Mark said:
Seems unnecessarily long.

What is the purpose of that length of time?
Click to expand...
That's actually a super short wait period. Some go up to 2-3 weeks. In any case, the purpose of a delay period is the rare cases where someone does need to cool off.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
That's actually a super short wait period. Some go up to 2-3 weeks. In any case, the purpose of a delay period is the rare cases where someone does need to cool off.
Click to expand...

Which is complete idiocy. ask anyone who is involved in this area-if you are premeditated enough to go to a gun store, fill out the paperwork, etc you are no longer "in the heat of passion. even in a gun store where the owners used to be my clients and where I have spent thousands of dollars and get the VIP treatment, I have never been able to buy a gun (including the 30 minute drive) in less than two hours.

If you are a VIP that almost always means you own other guns which means the waiting period is idiotic-if I was "in the heat of passion" I'd pick one of the dozens of guns I currently own

if I have NEVER Bought a gun before there is no way I am going to be able to buy a weapon from the type of dealer who would be able to or subject to the waiting period in a short amount of time.

merely reading the 4473 and filling it out correctly so it passes the clerk's review is gonna take a newbie 15 minutes

how do I know this

well I have seen over 10,000 guns sold in my life and have sold a few hundred myself. back when I represented a major league gun dealer I often would help it sells at big Ohio gun shows.

I also spend a couple hours (min) a week at a range which also sells more firearms than any other dealer in the greater cincinnati area. the Staff often asks me for advice on weapons unfamiliar to the clerk since I tend to know far far more than the 25-35 year olds who make up the majority of the staff. and I have watched thousands of transactions involving form 4473s
 
ThePlayDrive said:
That's actually a super short wait period. Some go up to 2-3 weeks. In any case, the purpose of a delay period is the rare cases where someone does need to cool off.
Click to expand...
That seems like a flimsy reason.

If a 15min wait after filling out whatever paperwork is necessary doesn't cool someone off, then I'm not sure a 24 hour wait would be much better. Sure as hell I’ve never stayed upset for that long, especially if I’m filling out paperwork (well, I might be a bit ticked at the paperwork, but…:mrgreen:).

Then again, I’ve never been mad enough to even consider killing someone that I can recall, so…

If someone can stay in a killing rage or something for 24 hours, I’m thinking they have other issues.
 
The Mark said:
That seems like a flimsy reason.

If a 15min wait after filling out whatever paperwork is necessary doesn't cool someone off, then I'm not sure a 24 hour wait would be much better. Sure as hell I’ve never stayed upset for that long, especially if I’m filling out paperwork (well, I might be a bit ticked at the paperwork, but…:mrgreen:).

Then again, I’ve never been mad enough to even consider killing someone that I can recall, so…

If someone can stay in a killing rage or something for 24 hours, I’m thinking they have other issues.
Click to expand...

You are right

TPD is just making that up and its complete and utter horse poop.

the main reason for a waiting period was originally that the cops couldn't do an instant background check

that might have been true 40 years ago but its BS now. when you get pulled over by the Po Po for speeding, the cop does a check on you that is as thorough as anything that can be done in several days.
 
TurtleDude said:
You are right

TPD is just making that up and its complete and utter horse poop.

the main reason for a waiting period was originally that the cops couldn't do an instant background check

that might have been true 40 years ago but its BS now. when you get pulled over by the Po Po for speeding, the cop does a check on you that is as thorough as anything that can be done in several days.
Click to expand...

As an only vaguely related side-note, I recall this amusing story...

A CE (computer engineer) that used to work where I do was rushing to work one day to fix a State Police server that had gone down.

Got stopped for speeding, and after handing over his info, the cop went to look him up...but was unable to…because the system was down.

After some explanation, he got a police escort to work.

:lol:
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
That seems like a flimsy reason.

If a 15min wait after filling out whatever paperwork is necessary doesn't cool someone off, then I'm not sure a 24 hour wait would be much better. Sure as hell I’ve never stayed upset for that long, especially if I’m filling out paperwork (well, I might be a bit ticked at the paperwork, but…:mrgreen:).

Then again, I’ve never been mad enough to even consider killing someone that I can recall, so…

If someone can stay in a killing rage or something for 24 hours, I’m thinking they have other issues.
Click to expand...
That's why I said "rare" cases. Another thing that's also rare is innocent people being killed by the death penalty, but I don't support that because of those rare cases. To me, in both instances, a lost life is worth a sacrifice, particularly a minimal sacrifice, and having to wait 24 hours is an incredibly minimal sacrifice. I tend to not to consider dead people "flimsy" reasons.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
That's why I said "rare" cases. Another thing that's also rare is innocent people being killed by the death penalty, but I don't support that because of those rare cases. To me, in both instances, a lost life is worth a sacrifice, particularly a minimal sacrifice, and having to wait 24 hours is an incredibly minimal sacrifice. I tend to not to consider dead people "flimsy" reasons.
Click to expand...

A waiting period is not necessarily an incredibly minimal sacrifice. A 24 hour wait eliminates the possibility of purchasing a firearm at a gun show on Sunday as many of the vendors are from out of the area, and therefore will not be available in 24 hours for delivery. In any event, a 15 minute wait for a background check meaning a 15 minute for a purchase is also a myth. There are two forms to fill out (In Virginia), both which will require some time to read, fill out, and sign. The info is fed into the system, and the wait is whatever it is. From a few minutes to a few days if there is a glitch somewhere, either in the system or your paperwork. All in all, including driving time, wait time in the gun store, paperwork, and sale, I would say most of a half day should be allotted. More if the gun is purchased on a gun show Saturday. Your approval gets in line.

I've mentioned this before, but there is no gun show loophole. Any gun purchased from a FFL dealer is subject to the same check as if I bought it in a store. The exception is collectors guns and personally owned guns. At the last show I attended, I saw only a couple of personally owned guns. No one buys a hundred year old sidearm for the purpose of committing a crime.

I no longer support the death penalty due to the potential for error. But this is different than a gun purchase. My purchase in no way puts your life at risk.
 
jimbo said:
A waiting period is not necessarily an incredibly minimal sacrifice. A 24 hour wait eliminates the possibility of purchasing a firearm at a gun show on Sunday as many of the vendors are from out of the area, and therefore will not be available in 24 hours for delivery. In any event, a 15 minute wait for a background check meaning a 15 minute for a purchase is also a myth. There are two forms to fill out (In Virginia), both which will require some time to read, fill out, and sign. The info is fed into the system, and the wait is whatever it is. From a few minutes to a few days if there is a glitch somewhere, either in the system or your paperwork. All in all, including driving time, wait time in the gun store, paperwork, and sale, I would say most of a half day should be allotted. More if the gun is purchased on a gun show Saturday. Your approval gets in line.

I've mentioned this before, but there is no gun show loophole. Any gun purchased from a FFL dealer is subject to the same check as if I bought it in a store. The exception is collectors guns and personally owned guns. At the last show I attended, I saw only a couple of personally owned guns. No one buys a hundred year old sidearm for the purpose of committing a crime.

I no longer support the death penalty due to the potential for error. But this is different than a gun purchase. My purchase in no way puts your life at risk.
Click to expand...
Everything that you just listed is an incredibly minimal sacrifice to me. You're talking about people being inconvenienced while purchasing a luxury item. People wait longer for much more important things.

In any case, you're missing my point about the death penalty. It's rare that an innocent person is executed, but those few lives are enough to make me not support the death penalty. It's also rare that a person needs a "cooling off" period to purchase a weapon, but those few people are enough to make me want a waiting period. Whether or not YOUR purchase puts my life at risk is irrelevant just like whether or not most death penalty criminals are guilty is irrelevant because I'm not making my decision based on you or them. I'm making my decision based on the rare cases.
 
I 100% support the 2nd amendment however, I do believe it should be limited to handguns and rifles, I don't believe our founders could have imagined the incredible technology gun makers have afforded us. I see no actual reason for a US citizen to own a machine gun.
 
joko104 said:
Many people have a movie-fantasy view about guns and their fighting off hordes of terrorists or some action shootout with evildoers in their home. It is just that, fantasy. In those fantascies they invision being heroic for killing bad people like an action hero. Unfortunately, even many police officers have such view. Among my jobs is to train officers to think otherwise and instead real applications and correct usages of firearms in real-world terms.

However, it is more dangerous a view for citizens rather than officers. Officers understand the consequences of shooting someone dead and of doing so wrongly. Citizens don't and the overwhelming number of gun-deaths in homes are so-called "accidental" deaths.


Your comment about preferring rocks over a rubber bullet then backed up by metal bullets just indicates your fantasy only allows senarios of killing armed assailants as an action hero and no understand of mental-physical reaction times, impact force or any any reality other than you as the action hero.

Unlike your mono-load view, my firearms are loaded each with a variety of ammo, which I will change for the circumstances of carry of potential usage. For example, 1st round rubber bullet, then hollow point (stopping power) and the next steel jacketed (for penetration) etc. That is my 1911 45s. For shotguns, the diversity is even greater. But, then, unlike you, I can fire multiple rounds and even go through multiple clips rather quickly and accurately - the latter being more important.

Otherwise for your comment expressing your opposition to multiple type rounds in your firearm, I gather you have a particularly weak finger and can only manage pulling off one shot every few seconds and therefore you couldn't to fire a second lethal round for many seconds.

At close range any marksman could not only knock anyone down with a rubber bullet, but kill someone with one. You really don't know what you're talking about comparing a rock to a rubber bullet. They are considered "semi lethal." Depends where they hit and at what velocity.

I seriously doubt you'll ever had the situation where you are Matt Dillon in a quick draw contest with the villian, but that's what you envision.
Click to expand...

There are so many presumptions in this post about me personally that I feel compelled to rebut:

Contrary to your opinion, I have no movie fantasy, no desire to get into a shootout, fight off terrorists. I don't envision being heroic, in fact, I would prefer to never have to fire my self defense weapons for their intended purpose. The only time I have ever fired my weapons in defense was to stop a vicious attack by two dogs on a young boy. Hardly heroic, and not a movie fantasy. Contrary to your opinion I do understand the consequences of killing a person, rightly or wrongly. Most CCW holders do. Your suggestion that legal gun owners are involved in more accidental deaths than other groups is false. I would like a reference to any any substantiation of any of this paragraph.

My comment about preferring rocks over rubber bullets was not an endorsement of rocks as a weapon, but rather my lack of endorsement of rubber bullets. Rubber bullets may be OK for LEO crowd control, but I don't do that kind of work. Ditto my mono load view as opposed to your multi load view. I doubt that any home invader or auto hijacker is going to wait around while I change loads for the purpose. LEO have that luxury, I do not.

Frankly, you haven't a clue how fast I can get off multiple rounds accurately, nor do you have a clue how much training, experience, range time, or mental preparation I have. I don't have a particularly weak finger, and can fire off 5 shots from my LCR in far less time than you imply, and I do not have, or need, multiple clips, speed loaders, or high capacity magazines. By the time my revolvers are empty, the fight will be over, and someone will be disabled or dead. I prefer revolvers as I am more familiar with them, and consider them safer and more reliable. I also have enough range time to hone my skills and my confidence to the point that will fulfill my needs in self defense.

You are dead damn wrong in your assumption that I consider myself to ever be in a quick draw situation with Matt Dillon. Not my purpose with a firearm. Self defense is.

I could outline my experience qualifications for you, but I won't bother. Not relevant to this post, nor is your personal attack.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Not arguing for any of that at all, what I'm saying is you cannot ban something properly in the U.S. without having a very valid case. Ammunition is not ordnance, neither is a propane cannister or even aerosol cans, ammunition can blow up, but it isn't it's primary function, same with flamable materials. Ordnance has one function, detonate and destroy which is the reason it can be restricted. Improperly storing flamable household items might cause a minor fire or explosion, improperly storing a mortar round will cause a massive one, as well you can't really use most of the crew served weapons for an effective attack without injuring or killing innocents if used properly, unlike a firearm or sword or other small arms. So no, I am not at all sounding anti-second.
Click to expand...

You, like the ones you say are anti second amendment, are limiting it according to your own ideas. There is nothing in the amendment that says a word about ordinance, or about how much damage a particular arm might cause if improperly used. Your argument is the same as any other limiting the second amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom