Why compromise is stupid

[aociswundumho]

So you compromise and give in, and more "common sense" gun control laws are passed. Afterwards:

If gun violence goes up or remains the same, that's evidence that still more gun control laws are needed.

If gun violence goes down, that's evidence that gun control works - hence more gun control laws are needed to reduce gun violence further.

Compromising on gun rights is foolish. Give a filthy leftist an inch, and he'll take a mile and a half every time.

 

[Rich2018]

Gun control can only be a half measure unless the 2nd amendment is repealed and guns are banned.


If mass shootings then go up, you will have a point. So far they have gone down in countries that have banned guns.

 

[Praxas]

So you compromise and give in, and more "common sense" gun control laws are passed. Afterwards:

If gun violence goes up or remains the same, that's evidence that still more gun control laws are needed.

If gun violence goes down, that's evidence that gun control works - hence more gun control laws are needed to reduce gun violence further.

Compromising on gun rights is foolish. Give a filthy leftist an inch, and he'll take a mile and a half every time.

There are Zero gun control bans that have affected my personal inventory and I have several fully automatic weapons and still have them.

 

[Bullseye]

Gun control can only be a half measure unless the 2nd amendment is repealed and guns are banned.


If mass shootings then go up, you will have a point. So far they have gone down in countries that have banned guns.

Which countries are those? Let's see some before and after stats that prove you points. I won't wait.

 

[CaughtInThe]

don't worry. this country will be loaded for bear for the rest of every one your lives. we're always gonna have a gazillion guns.

 

[TurtleDude]

There are Zero gun control bans that have affected my personal inventory and I have several fully automatic weapons and still have them.

and they are worth far more than what you paid for them, I suspect-which is great for you, but is awful for someone who wasn't able to buy one in 1985

 

[Praxas]

and they are worth far more than what you paid for them, I suspect-which is great for you, but is awful for someone who wasn't able to buy one in 1985

Isn't that the way for many items. I mean you can say the same thing for someone who wanted to buy a baseball card made in 1950 that wanted to buy it in 2015.

Have you ever fired a fully automatic weapon more than 10 magazines? I would honestly take several semi-automatic weapons over ONE fully automatic weapon any day of the week if you are in a situation where you have to fire that much.

So if we are really talking functionality. Unless you are in a Vietnam, WWII or WWI situation, multiple semi-automatic weapons are the way to go. Are you envisioning a Vietnam, WWII or WWI situation any time soon?

Here's a different situation I want to let you in on. I LOVE fireworks. I mean I really really love fireworks. However, they have been banned in many many states including the one I live in. They have been banned because idiots have caused damage to property. So are FOR fireworks being banned? serious question and I'll go into more when you've answered.

 

[TurtleDude]

Isn't that the way for many items. I mean you can say the same thing for someone who wanted to buy a baseball card made in 1950 that wanted to buy it in 2015.

Have you ever fired a fully automatic weapon more than 10 magazines? I would honestly take several semi-automatic weapons over ONE fully automatic weapon any day of the week if you are in a situation where you have to fire that much.

So if we are really talking functionality. Unless you are in a Vietnam, WWII or WWI situation, multiple semi-automatic weapons are the way to go. Are you envisioning a Vietnam, WWII or WWI situation any time soon?

Here's a different situation I want to let you in on. I LOVE fireworks. I mean I really really love fireworks. However, they have been banned in many many states including the one I live in. They have been banned because idiots have caused damage to property. So are FOR fireworks being banned? serious question and I'll go into more when you've answered.

I have thousands upon thousands of rounds of automatic weapons experience. Several reasons including I once was general counsel for a class III dealer, a Title II Manufacturer and I was good friends with the FBI firearms instructor when I worked with him. SO I could shoot most of the stuff people could buy including a M2 BMG that the Title II manufacturer had built from a "registered side plate""

and you are right about effectiveness.

I don't think fireworks should be banned until they reach a certain destructive level-and those should be regulated to those who hold fireworks licenses. stuff like bottle rockets etc should not be, but those who harm others with them should be prosecuted.

 

[Praxas]

and you are right about effectiveness.

Please don't include me being right about effectiveness to being FOR banning of weapons. I was only proving a point. Not that I agree with banning because I don't. Just want to make that perfectly clear.

I don't think fireworks should be banned until they reach a certain destructive level-and those should be regulated to those who hold fireworks licenses. stuff like bottle rockets etc should not be, but those who harm others with them should be prosecuted.

I am of the mindset that if someone sets off a fire that damages property or a person, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, I don't think ALL fireworks should be banned. In Nevada where I live at all fireworks are banned, including ground based fireworks like fountains.

 

[TurtleDude]

Please don't include me being right about effectiveness to being FOR banning of weapons. I was only proving a point. Not that I agree with banning because I don't. Just want to make that perfectly clear.



I am of the mindset that if someone sets off a fire that damages property or a person, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, I don't think ALL fireworks should be banned. In Nevada where I live at all fireworks are banned, including ground based fireworks like fountains.

I have no argument with those positions. In Ohio you can BUY and sell but you are rather constrained on what you can do with them. when my kid buys the stuff (he shoots them off on my farm rather than his subdivision) he always buys them in Indiana. Why-because shooting them off is almost never going to be prosecuted if you do it on the fourth, but lying on an OHIO form and saying you will use them out of state, is perjury. when he buys them in Indiana (35 minute drive) he can honestly state on the form-YES I WILL TAKE THEM OUT OF STATE

 

[ecofarm]

I have no argument with those positions. In Ohio you can BUY and sell but you are rather constrained on what you can do with them. when my kid buys the stuff (he shoots them off on my farm rather than his subdivision) he always buys them in Indiana. Why-because shooting them off is almost never going to be prosecuted if you do it on the fourth, but lying on an OHIO form and saying you will use them out of state, is perjury. when he buys them in Indiana (35 minute drive) he can honestly state on the form-YES I WILL TAKE THEM OUT OF STATE

Florida legalized everything sometime between me wanting them and being annoyed by them. I don't mean to 'get off my lawn', but I'd be happy if it was banned again. Buncha noise.

 

[ecofarm]

Have you ever fired a fully automatic weapon more than 10 magazines? I would honestly take several semi-automatic weapons over ONE fully automatic weapon any day of the week if you are in a situation where you have to fire that much.

So if we are really talking functionality. Unless you are in a Vietnam, WWII or WWI situation, multiple semi-automatic weapons are the way to go. Are you envisioning a Vietnam, WWII or WWI situation any time soon?

Thousands of rounds. M60, M249, M16 on burst, MK 19, M2...

Autofire is for suppression to assault a fortified position, not for inflicting casualties.

 

[AmNat]

So you compromise and give in, and more "common sense" gun control laws are passed. Afterwards:

If gun violence goes up or remains the same, that's evidence that still more gun control laws are needed.

If gun violence goes down, that's evidence that gun control works - hence more gun control laws are needed to reduce gun violence further.

Compromising on gun rights is foolish. Give a filthy leftist an inch, and he'll take a mile and a half every time.

Bingo. They've made it clear what their end goal is, so any compromise is foolish for the foreseeable future, even granting arguendo that the compromise position is reasonable.

 

[Praxas]

Thousands of rounds. M60, M249, M16 on burst, MK 19, M2...

Autofire is for suppression to assault a fortified position, not for inflicting casualties.

So again, when would you find the regular civilian in that situation?

 

[ecofarm]

So again, when would you find the regular civilian in that situation?

You're gonna get me in trouble with the pro gun crowd.

I believe the founders delineated between weapons of self defense (individual right) and weapons of national defense (realm of the state). The founders had no intention of every possible weapon being unregulated. They understood that some weapons, like a ship of war for example, were weapons of national defense and thereby the realm of the state. The founders drew this line at the militia, specifically the arms of the militia. Militia, in the context of weapon delineation, means infantry. The founders decided that the arms of the infantry would be protected.

So, now where do we draw the line specifically. Well, I interpret arms to mean firearms (some people disagree). I would also accept limiting it to weapons issued to individual soldiers. Crew served weapons are practically indirect fire and serve to some extent as ordnance. Suppressing with a 50 from two clicks is more like artillery fire than direct fire.

And there's one more consideration. As noted earlier, autofire serves no defensive purpose. If one is employing autofire for defense, one will die. There's only so much ammo; one will inevitably be overrun. While this consideration is not specifically noted in the 2nd, we might note that autofire was only possible via crew served weapons when the Constitution was written. I'm not sure the founders foresaw the development of individual suppression weapons.

For these reasons, I am okay with infringing upon crew served and autofire weapons. That is not to say banning them, but to say they do not have all the protections of weapons that are certainly within the realm of "militia arms".

So, licenses or such for autos is okay by me though not assuredly ideal and in accordance with the intentions of the 2nd.

 

[Rich2018]

Autofire is for suppression to assault a fortified position, not for inflicting casualties.

You're confusing automatic fire for use in an assault with use in defense (especially in the Korean War when faced with a "human wave")


In WWII I was in a recent debate, which was the best machine gun, the German MG-42 or the British BREN gun ?

 

[Rich2018]

Which countries are those? Let's see some before and after stats that prove you points. I won't wait.

Most countries in the Western world.

Two recent examples of countries banning certain guns are Australia and the UK.

 

[ecofarm]

You're confusing automatic fire for use in an assault with use in defense (especially in the Korean War when faced with a "human wave")


In WWII I was in a recent debate, which was the best machine gun, the German MG-42 or the British BREN gun ?

Employing small arms against a wave is a fail to start.

 

[Bullseye]

Most countries in the Western world.

Two recent examples of countries banning certain guns are Australia and the UK.

Us bans certain guns, too. Got anything else?

 

[RF667799]

You're gonna get me in trouble with the pro gun crowd.

I believe the founders delineated between weapons of self defense (individual right) and weapons of national defense (realm of the state). The founders had no intention of every possible weapon being unregulated. They understood that some weapons, like a ship of war for example, were weapons of national defense and thereby the realm of the state. The founders drew this line at the militia, specifically the arms of the militia. Militia, in the context of weapon delineation, means infantry. The founders decided that the arms of the infantry would be protected.

So, now where do we draw the line specifically. Well, I interpret arms to mean firearms (some people disagree). I would also accept limiting it to weapons issued to individual soldiers. Crew served weapons are practically indirect fire and serve to some extent as ordnance. Suppressing with a 50 from two clicks is more like artillery fire than direct fire.

And there's one more consideration. As noted earlier, autofire serves no defensive purpose. If one is employing autofire for defense, one will die. There's only so much ammo; one will inevitably be overrun. While this consideration is not specifically noted in the 2nd, we might note that autofire was only possible via crew served weapons when the Constitution was written. I'm not sure the founders foresaw the development of individual suppression weapons.

For these reasons, I am okay with infringing upon crew served and autofire weapons. That is not to say banning them, but to say they do not have all the protections of weapons that are certainly within the realm of "militia arms".

So, licenses or such for autos is okay by me though not assuredly ideal and in accordance with the intentions of the 2nd.

I find much merit in your post, but would have to quibble with the idea that machineguns are useless in the defense. They're often employed in defensive positions. Are you perhaps looking at it through an airborne/no logistical support filter?

 

[ecofarm]

I find much merit in your post, but would have to quibble with the idea that machineguns are useless in the defense. They're often employed in defensive positions. Are you perhaps looking at it through an airborne/no logistical support filter?

I'm talking about Joe on his own, as a civilian would be in defense. A civilian employing autofire for defense has no logistics and absolutely will die.

 

[RF667799]

I'm talking about Joe on his own, as a civilian would be in defense. A civilian employing autofire for defense has no logistics and absolutely will die.

I can't quibble with that.

 

[ecofarm]

I can't quibble with that.

I wouldn't wanna be in a static MG position even with logistics and support. My job was learning how to take that out and it's really easy.

 

[RF667799]

I wouldn't wanna be in a static MG position even with logistics and support. My job was learning how to take that out and it's really easy.

Oh c'mon. You guys tell yourselves that but you wear the medal (when you get one) anyway.

True exchange:

"What did you get that one for? (Silver Star)"

"Taking out a machine gun. What else?"

 

[ecofarm]

Oh c'mon. You guys tell yourselves that but you wear the medal (when you get one) anyway.

True exchange:

"What did you get that one for? (Silver Star)"

"Taking out a machine gun. What else?"

The war was over before my training was complete. I got a handful of aams and an arcom that, in total, mean nothing.