A friend's argument on guns, I like to hear your rebuttal

[Jimbo302]

Actually I have read several articles that say a shotgun is best for home defense. This is as important for being able to hit the intruder and will also insure that the weapon will not penetrate the walls and possibly hit someone in another room, i.e., family member. That is what can happen if a high powered rifle or pistol is used.

It's painfully obvious that you don't actually know what you are talking about.

 

[independentusa]

That is akin to saying surgery is the best treatment for cancer.

Actually for most cancers the first treatment is surgery to excise the known cancer. Yo might try another answer.

 

[independentusa]

It's painfully obvious that you don't actually know what you are talking about.

So you know that some other weapon is better for home protection? If so, give out or shut up. And coming from a military family and having been in the military I do know a little about guns.

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually for most cancers the first treatment is surgery to excise the known cancer. Yo might try another answer.

and in many cases a shotgun is the best solution but not always and in some cases it is the worst. The problem is, your posts demonstrate you don't understand the subject enough to really discuss it with me or others who do.

 

[Jimbo302]

So you know that some other weapon is better for home protection? If so, give out or shut up. And coming from a military family and having been in the military I do know a little about guns.

You misunderstand. This shows that you have very little knowledge of the subject, and not enough understanding to know what I was referencing.

Also, the "shut up/I was military", is just a pitiful addition, you should expect better of yourself.

The majority of the military barely knows the basics about firearms.

 

[TurtleDude]

So you know that some other weapon is better for home protection? If so, give out or shut up. And coming from a military family and having been in the military I do know a little about guns.

No you don't

so here are the questions I will ask you

1) if your home is invaded are you most likely to have all the family members in ONE ROOM or will you have to go out and protect vulnerable children from an intruder or an invalid?

2) what is the longest distance you might have to engage an attacker in your home

3) is your home a rather open layout or are there narrow halls that you may have to negotiate to go and protect or gather up a child

4) what are your exterior walls made of-and how close is your nearest neighbor-is that neighbor on the other side of drywall or is he or she 300M away with two brick walls between you and the neighbor.

 

[VanceMack]

So you know that some other weapon is better for home protection? If so, give out or shut up. And coming from a military family and having been in the military I do know a little about guns.

I'm SURE in your time in the military they trained you how to clear homes with shotguns. I bet you did a lot of training with shotguns as your battle weapon...right? Everyone waiting outside to breach while they sling their combat weapon and unpack their shotguns...

because THATS how we roll in the military...right?

 

[pinqy]

So you know that some other weapon is better for home protection? If so, give out or shut up. And coming from a military family and having been in the military I do know a little about guns.

I live in a narrow townhouse. Trying to maneuver with a shotgun would be difficult at best. A handgun with hollow points is much better for protecting my house. And I promise you i was in the military longer than you were.

 

[BahamaBob]

This clown obviously has no real knowledge of firearms. Just another lib tard playing make believe.
1. You do not need an FFL license to own a machine gun.
2. If you are trying to avoid collateral damage, the last thing you want to defend your home with is a shotgun. A 12 gauge shell with 00 load like you would use for self defense has 12 balls that are about 30 cal in size. The pattern can be larger than a basketball depending on the range. The chances of hitting a lot more than you are shooting at are good.
3. Cars are not like guns. No idiot is trying to tell safe legal drivers that they can't own sports cars because some drunk drivers get in wrecks. Even though it does happen a lot more than gun violence.
4. No trained expert disarms people who are shooting at them. They shoot back.
5. If the US military shows up at your house they are breaking the law. They are violating the Posse Comitatus Act.

I read a blog the other day that said, China has the biggest army in the world with 3 million soldiers, the US has 70 million armed civilians. Does anyone with a functioning brain think this country can be occupied?

 

[Jimbo302]

I live in a narrow townhouse. Trying to maneuver with a shotgun would be difficult at best. A handgun with hollow points is much better for protecting my house. And I promise you i was in the military longer than you were.

Sometimes a SBS or even an 18.5" smoothbore with a junior or stubby stock can be quite handy indoors. The wide variation of available rounds can be tailored to fit many different situations as well.
However, I agree sometimes it is difficult to beat the maneuverability of a handgun in close quarters.

 

[BahamaBob]

Sometimes a SBS or even an 18.5" smoothbore with a junior or stubby stock can be quite handy indoors. The wide variation of available rounds can be tailored to fit many different situations as well.
However, I agree sometimes it is difficult to beat the maneuverability of a handgun in close quarters.

Another thing you must consider, if you are not there and it is your wife who needs to defend herself. I have found that most women and shotguns do not mix. They can not handle the recoil. However, my wife is very handy with a full sized 9mm with a high capacity clip. Hollow points being the ammunition of choice of course.

 

[Drawdown]

This was on a friend's Facebook page. I find the arguments compelling and I would like to hear those on the other side ----conservatives and Libertarians Etc-- their rebuttal of the arguments

( copied with permission)


Leonidas Christian Mixon

“We have a gun problem and a bull**** problem in the United States. Let me start by saying I am a gun owner. I have been since I was 6. I’ve had jobs that required me to carry a weapon. I’ve been shot at more than once. I’ve disarmed people who were trying to kill me. This isn’t coming from someone who doesn’t understand guns. It’s precisely because I do understand them that I’m going to call out the bull**** that stops us from having the reforms to gun laws that we needed years ago. If you want to debate any of the points below, I have no problem.
These are simple facts.

1) I need an assault rifle for home defense.

No, you don’t. A short barreled shotgun is the best tool for home defense. And that only counts if you’re insanely proficient with it and you get incredibly lucky. The likelihood you will get the chance to use it is next to zero. If you do, you’re very likely to kill a member of your family accidentally. In a REAL altercation, you don’t get to choose your field of fire. It happens incredibly fast, usually in the dark. If you’re popping off with a rifle, you are going to hit things you don’t intend to. Guns are tools. Period. Assault Rifles are intended to be used on a battlefield. Battlefield tactics don’t work in your house. It’s a bull**** argument.

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

4) My gun is a right that can’t be modified.

Again, utter bull****. You can’t own a howitzer unless the barrel is full of concrete. You can’t own a cannon manufactured in the last century. You can’t own a fully automatic weapon without a FFL. That’s why those things are rarely used in crimes. And all of that is based on an amendment to our constitution that can be changed if we as a country see fit to do so. We have changed amendments before and we will again. If you don’t understand that you need a history lesson and a dictionary.

Creating common sense laws that put speed bumps in the way of lunatics helps. Every time. Automobile licenses, speed limits, etc don’t end accidents, but they make them less frequent and less deadly. It’s a proven concept. The time for bull**** excuses is over. It’s time to step up and take responsibility. **** this stupidity.”

Even you acknowledge that these aren't roadblocks, just speed bumps. I would support gun control if I thought it would help. I do not think it will even slow the tide. We have an over-reliance on prescription medications though, particularly when it comes to the alleged treatment of "lunatics". We are drugging the symptoms without effectively treating the issues. Perhaps rethinking our approach to mental health would be a better place to start.

 

[DebateChallenge]

It looks like OscarLevant has left the building.

 

[jdog21]

Actually I have read several articles that say a shotgun is best for home defense. This is as important for being able to hit the intruder and will also insure that the weapon will not penetrate the walls and possibly hit someone in another room, i.e., family member. That is what can happen if a high powered rifle or pistol is used.

One of the most effective guns for home defense was basically made illegal by the NFA of '34.
Now you want to make effective easy to use and reload shotguns to be banned as well cause they are considered assault weapons by the unknowing democrats.

And you can have some of the best of both worlds weapons if you want, you get the longer range and scope to protect your livestock and property and the shotgun and flash light for home defense all in the same package, but democrats want that to be illegal too.

 

[Obscurity]

He was OK until #3 and by extension #4.

The 2A does not define a state issued privilege (like driving a car) it greatly limits the government from removing the (pre-existing) right of the people to own and carry guns suitable for militia (military) use. Therefore, any comparisons to a mere state issued privilege are BS.

Simply because the 2A, like many rights, are not unlimited does not mean that any and all limits are OK. If that was the case then the entire BoR is simply window dressing and the federal government can pass any laws that it desires. To refer to things like the AWB or magazine capacity limits as a "speed bumps" is just plain dishonesty - it's a ban on guns (or integral parts of them) currently in common use for lawful purposes.

Emphasis mine; it also says a "well regulated militia". Now, I am not a gun "grabber" in any sense and own guns myself and believe they are necessary (I live in bear country and have run into them on more than one occasion), however, the line about militias is intriguing.

Would a requirement for specific weapons of war be unconstitutional if that requirement meant you were only able to own militia style weapons (AR-15, AK-47, etc) if you were a member of a well regulated militia?

 

[TurtleDude]

Emphasis mine; it also says a "well regulated militia". Now, I am not a gun "grabber" in any sense and own guns myself and believe they are necessary (I live in bear country and have run into them on more than one occasion), however, the line about militias is intriguing.

Would a requirement for specific weapons of war be unconstitutional if that requirement meant you were only able to own militia style weapons (AR-15, AK-47, etc) if you were a member of a well regulated militia?

most people forget there are two edges to the sword against government bans

1) there is the second amendment that tells the federal government it cannot ban weapons that are normally ones citizens can keep and bear

2) and there is nothing that LEGITIMATELY empowers the federal government to restrict what arms citizens can own, and thus the tenth amendment (and perhaps the 9th ) in reference to Article one Section 8, also prevents such action

 

[Obscurity]

most people forget there are two edges to the sword against government bans

1) there is the second amendment that tells the federal government it cannot ban weapons that are normally ones citizens can keep and bear

2) and there is nothing that LEGITIMATELY empowers the federal government to restrict what arms citizens can own, and thus the tenth amendment (and perhaps the 9th ) in reference to Article one Section 8, also prevents such action

The 2nd amendment explicitly says a "Well regulated militia" so I fail to see how you can pick and choose which words you apply and how in the constitution and its amendments.

A well regulated militia seems to me, in an originalist sense, to mean an armed and regulated/trained group of irregulars that the Federal Government/State governments could call on in times of war.

I think unnecessary emphasis is placed on the rest of the amendment, and not enough on the militia portion.

Why is that?

 

[Lursa]

3) Gun registration, background checks, etc are a slippery slope to confiscation.

Bull****. We register cars. We have to prove proficiency to operate them. We are required to have insurance in the event we cause damage with them. It’s been that way for decades, and no one is “coming to take your car”. Making sure people have the barest minimum of responsibility doesn’t lead to loss. Fear of loss leads to fundraising and bull****. It’s not rational.

This is how that person's brain works? Moronic.

Just because the govt 'hasnt come for our cars' doesnt mean they couldnt and then obviously, registration would enable that.

But certainly it's done on an individual level all the time, see: drug proceeds confiscations

Even more moronic is not recognizing there's no parallel for social or criminal causes between confiscation of cars and firearms.

 

[VanceMack]

Emphasis mine; it also says a "well regulated militia". Now, I am not a gun "grabber" in any sense and own guns myself and believe they are necessary (I live in bear country and have run into them on more than one occasion), however, the line about militias is intriguing.

Would a requirement for specific weapons of war be unconstitutional if that requirement meant you were only able to own militia style weapons (AR-15, AK-47, etc) if you were a member of a well regulated militia?

Well regulated simply means "kept in good working order". Washington himself discussed the requirement for citizens to own firearms, keep them in good working order, to be well trained in their use, and to be appropriately apportioned (munitions).

The federal government did not have a militia act in place when the BoR was passed. The militia acts werent passed til several years after the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified.

Currently...the militia is defined in the US code as both the organized and unorganized militias. We are all, with very few exceptions...the militia.

 

[TurtleDude]

The 2nd amendment explicitly says a "Well regulated militia" so I fail to see how you can pick and choose which words you apply and how in the constitution and its amendments.

A well regulated militia seems to me, in an originalist sense, to mean an armed and regulated/trained group of irregulars that the Federal Government/State governments could call on in times of war.

I think unnecessary emphasis is placed on the rest of the amendment, and not enough on the militia portion.

Why is that?

well people who actually understand the constitution understand that the second amendment does not say the "right of the militia" but the right of the people, and that disposes of that silly attempt to pretend the right belongs to the "militia"

Plus, the militia argument has been destroyed by every supreme court case that has dealt with the second amendment

finally, the second amendment was an attempt by the founders to guarantee and ratify a right they saw existing from the start of mankind. Self defense. and your silly position would be that you have to join a governmental group for a right that pre-exists government, for the right to vest

Try reading this post and the article I cite

More on the “The” and Pre-existing Rights | Cato Unbound

It is fun schooling those who have no understanding of constitutional philosophy.


The District of Columbia Court of Appeals said that the word “the” in “the right to keep and bear arms” shows that the Second Amendment protected a pre-existing right. All nine Justices agreed. The majority opinion makes exactly this point. ....So in short, we have a wealth of common law and English sources showing that there is a pre-existing natural right to have arms for personal defense. We have zero sources from before 1789 showing a pre-existing right to be in the militia, or to have arms only for use in the militia. If there were such sources, Justice Stevens could have cited one in support of his bare assertion about a pre-existent militia right.Because all nine Justices agree that the Second Amendment’s particular language points to a pre-existing right, the failure of Justice Stevens, and his supporters, to point to a source proving a pre-existing militia-only right is a fatal flaw in his theory of the Second Amendment as a militia-only right.

 

[Lursa]

2) I need to protect myself from a tyrannical Government...

Holy **** that’s stupid. That idea was from a time when the state of war was much more level. It isn’t now. At all. If an armored transport shows up on your front lawn with a 50 cal on the roof, you and your AK are ****ing toast. Soldiers train, and their weapons are an extension of their body. You will instantly lose. And before you bring up guerrilla fighters in Afghanistan or Iraq... you need a reality check. Those people were born in a country that was at war, on their soil, for their entire lives. You don’t compare to that on your best day. And they die in FAR greater numbers than they kill.

..

Every time I read this I wonder just how short-sighted and limited some peoples' thinking is.

There are tons of books out there...fiction and some even non-fiction...that describe ways to undermine the US govt in an active violent revolution, mostly through asymmetrical warfare means. Firearms are not close to the primary weapons. I wont go into details, the books are out there.

Do we wage war, today, with firearms? Expect to win wars using them? No. We use bombs and tanks, and espionage and infiltration and sabotage and hacking communications, etc etc etc.

But...who DOES carry firearms and why? Our soldiers do...for self-defense. To protect themselves and others in carrying out the war efforts.

It's the same reason American citizens should have every right to keep and carry firearms. Not for the act of overcoming tyranny (as written, there are many, better ways to do that)....but to protect themselves and their families if they are considered 'enemy combatants' in such a conflict. Or as they carry out other acts of war/rebellion against the govt. *Just like our soldiers.*

Our firearms are not, in this era, a tool for waging war. Now they are to protect any soldiers in such a war...just like our military today. But that's why discussions about 'if they have tanks, should citizens have tanks?' are just dumb. Same with using nukes there instead of tanks.

Of course I'm not saying any such rebellion is on the horizon, I'm just writing that there are plenty of ways to engage in that conflict and firearms will not be the primary weapons.

The FFs believed that guns in the hands of citizens discourage govt tyranny, by giving the people the means to defend themselves.

...

 

[Obscurity]

Well regulated simply means "kept in good working order". Washington himself discussed the requirement for citizens to own firearms, keep them in good working order, to be well trained in their use, and to be appropriately apportioned (munitions).

The federal government did not have a militia act in place when the BoR was passed. The militia acts werent passed til several years after the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified.

Currently...the militia is defined in the US code as both the organized and unorganized militias. We are all, with very few exceptions...the militia.

Could it be that Washington's designs here were based on the fact our country was involved in a land war against a tyrannical government thousands of miles away?

In an originalist sense, it makes sense that you treat the public as a militia, but the terminology of "well regulated" to me doesn't mean you keep your gun clean. It means you're trained (which is something conservatives fight against, required gun training, as you espouse here) in the use and safety of the gun itself.

 

[TurtleDude]

Could it be that Washington's designs here were based on the fact our country was involved in a land war against a tyrannical government thousands of miles away?

In an originalist sense, it makes sense that you treat the public as a militia, but the terminology of "well regulated" to me doesn't mean you keep your gun clean. It means you're trained (which is something conservatives fight against, required gun training, as you espouse here) in the use and safety of the gun itself.

you do know that there is absolutely no support for "militia" requirement in any supreme court case nor in the legal scholarship. it is a diversion anti gun lefties drag up to try to pretend that the second amendment does not prevent liberal schemes to disarm honest folk

 

[Obscurity]

well people who actually understand the constitution understand that the second amendment does not say the "right of the militia" but the right of the people, and that disposes of that silly attempt to pretend the right belongs to the "militia"

Nowhere did I say it was the right of a militia. I said the constitution says a well regulated militia in reference to the right to keep and bear arms.

Plus, the militia argument has been destroyed by every supreme court case that has dealt with the second amendment

And? Argument from Authority Fallacy.

finally, the second amendment was an attempt by the founders to guarantee and ratify a right they saw existing from the start of mankind. Self defense. and your silly position would be that you have to join a governmental group for a right that pre-exists government, for the right to vest

Try reading this post and the article I cite

Silly position? I haven't staked a position. I simply asked a question.

I'll converse with those who would discuss this without being condescending, thanks.

 

[Obscurity]

you do know that there is absolutely no support for "militia" requirement in any supreme court case nor in the legal scholarship. it is a diversion anti gun lefties drag up to try to pretend that the second amendment does not prevent liberal schemes to disarm honest folk

Argument from Authority Fallacy #2.

Like I said, I'll converse with you, when you choose to be civil. Normally VanceMack and I disagree and vehemently so; in this case, he is a better person to discuss this with as he is laying out his opinion in a balanced way and not appealing to authority to do so.