Black Moclips wrote:But don't some statements need some gunsplaining?
"If you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available." Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado).
The idea is sound. Once a ban goes into affect, the number of large clips will start to drop for many reasons, and there can be easy programs put into place to help drop that number even faster, so arguments that a ban would not work are just false.
The full statement:
Asked why banning ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette responded:
“These are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”
And it makes absolutely no sense what she is saying. She was trying to talk about guns and knew nothing about them. She didn't realize that magazines can be reloaded and used over and over again. Lolz.
So again - sometimes people need to be "gunsplained". This is like scratching a chalk board.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.”
Black Moclips wrote: And it makes absolutely no sense what she is saying. She was trying to talk about guns and knew nothing about them. She didn't realize that magazines can be reloaded and used over and over again. Lolz.
So again - sometimes people need to be "gunsplained". This is like scratching a chalk board.
Her basic idea of a ban working is sound. Sure she may be very ignorant, but the gunsplaning is just a way to try and dismiss the good idea that high round clips/magazines make mass shootings easier. People don't really need them. A ban will start to decrease there number. They don't last forever. Some are lost or thrown away. Programs can be implemented to help reduce the number faster. Police collect them all the time as well as many firearms.
The framers created the second amendment in order to ensure that militias would be available to protect the nation. They had a deep fear and distrust of standing professional armies as an institution, and believed that if America created one, it would be used as a pretext for levying outrageous taxes at best, and would become a means of oppressing the people at worst. The constitution specifically calls for the creation of an American navy, but not an army. So you’re not wrong when you characterize it as a check against tyranny.
That said, if the framers’ intent matters to you in the least, you’re kind of a hypocrite if you support the 2nd Amendment as a check against tyranny while you’ve got one of those yellow “Support the Troops” ribbons on your car. Supporting the 2nd Amendment as the framers intended means you ought to have a really loud voice in favor of drastically decreasing defense spending and calling for the abolition of the Army (and probably the Air Force too, since the constitution doesn’t call for one).
Now you might read this and think: “hey, times have changed a lot since the constitution was written and ratified. The world is a different place now. Abolishing the army just because the framers wouldn’t have wanted it would be stupid and counterproductive. Let’s not be so rigid in how we interpret the constitution, and apply it instead in the context of how we live.” If you’ve reached this point, congratulations: that’s exactly how gun control advocates feel about the second Amendment.
Additionally, when you talk about using your gun to defend yourself from tyranny, you’re talking about killing soldiers and cops. That’s who you’re preparing to fight. So a very healthy mistrust of these organizations would be a great start at showing you’re serious about your beliefs. If you think soldiers and cops are the best people ever, it indicates that you don’t really think you’re going to have to start capping them for trampling your rights in the near future, which makes this whole defense-from-tyranny argument more of a pretext than a principle.
And since your 2nd Amendment advocacy stops well short of restoring the militias as an institution, that means that it’s up to each individual to decide when they feel like tyranny is upon them. The lunatic who shot cops in Dallas thought he was defending his country from tyranny. It’s entirely possible that this battle between the people and the forces of oppression will look a lot more like repeats of the Dallas shooter, and a lot less like Red Dawn. If this conflict is going to go down, it would be really helpful to have an organized body that could determine when exactly tyranny has been reached and collectively respond: maybe like a militia.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Ohio 7th Grader Shoots Himself Inside Middle School Bathroom
We all know either intuitively, or factually, that having guns available, having guns period, creates this kind of problem. Sure sure, babies and abortion, but why is it so important for people to have guns these days? Is this kid shooting himself worth it? Those kids in Florida who were murdered is worth it? It's worth having a gun that you'll most likely never use either defending yourself against a would-be attacker or, I dunno, saving us all from the 'government'?
SMFH.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
aussieguy55 wrote:Would the creators of the second amendment have included it if they know that muskets would be replaced by high firing guns?
Do you really believe they were so ignorant in the evolution of weapons? These guys being aware of slingshot, arrow, spear, cannons, and even the Monitor and Merrimac, yet you are suggesting that these guys who conceived the rather deep framework of the US Constitution looked at each other and said : "naw, it'll never be worse than a musket, let them think that's what we intend by protecting oneself from the government..." (glances at keg of gunpowder).
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
subgenius wrote:Do you really believe they were so ignorant in the evolution of weapons? These guys being aware of slingshot, arrow, spear, cannons, and even the Monitor and Merrimac, yet you are suggesting that these guys who conceived the rather deep framework of the US Constitution looked at each other and said : "naw, it'll never be worse than a musket, let them think that's what we intend by protecting oneself from the government..." (glances at keg of gunpowder).
So you're saying you have a 2nd amendment right to own a nuclear warhead.
subgenius wrote:Do you really believe they were so ignorant in the evolution of weapons? These guys being aware of slingshot, arrow, spear, cannons, and even the Monitor and Merrimac, yet you are suggesting that these guys who conceived the rather deep framework of the US Constitution looked at each other and said : "naw, it'll never be worse than a musket, let them think that's what we intend by protecting oneself from the government..." (glances at keg of gunpowder).
So you're saying you have a 2nd amendment right to own a nuclear warhead.
Yah. You're dumb.
Subby thinks the Founders lived during the Civil War (Monitor and Merrimac?). Understandable, since his country, the CSA, was founded then.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Somebody, maybe Starbucks, can explain to this 7th grader's family what kind of weapon he used and why it's important to understand terminology?
Ohio 7th Grader Shoots Himself Inside Middle School Bathroom
We all know either intuitively, or factually, that having guns available, having guns period, creates this kind of problem. Sure sure, babies and abortion, but why is it so important for people to have guns these days? Is this kid shooting himself worth it? Those kids in Florida who were murdered is worth it? It's worth having a gun that you'll most likely never use either defending yourself against a would-be attacker or, I dunno, saving us all from the 'government'?
SMFH.
- Doc
The 7th grader died from his self-inflicted gunshot wound.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Kevin Graham wrote:Riddle me this. Why did the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Massachusetts explicitly write in their State Constitutions that their citizens had a right to bear arms for their own individual self defense? These State Constitutions were ratified well after the 2nd amendment which automatically applies to all states, so what is their reasoning unless it was understood at the time that the 2nd amendment didn't guarantee that specific right?
Ok, one 'no-true-scotsman post deserves another.... Because the 2nd is about avoiding a tyrannical force from within a nation's government...an obvious conclusion....a 'selves' defense. State governments, especially in early America still enjoyed a culture of autonomy to a greater extent, and thus I would have to imagine (as your post does) that these States were motivated by a more evolved definition of what it meant to be an Individual and be able to defend one's self, family, and property....my research shows that in 1803, Ohio's 911 service was not that good...ya know? basic American History and such.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Kevin Graham wrote:Riddle me this. Why did the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Massachusetts explicitly write in their State Constitutions that their citizens had a right to bear arms for their own individual self defense? These State Constitutions were ratified well after the 2nd amendment which automatically applies to all states, so what is their reasoning unless it was understood at the time that the 2nd amendment didn't guarantee that specific right?
Ok, one 'no-true-scotsman post deserves another.... Because the 2nd is about avoiding a tyrannical force from within a nation's government...an obvious conclusion....a 'selves' defense. State governments, especially in early America still enjoyed a culture of autonomy to a greater extent, and thus I would have to imagine (as your post does) that these States were motivated by a more evolved definition of what it meant to be an Individual and be able to defend one's self, family, and property....my research shows that in 1803, Ohio's 911 service was not that good...ya know? basic American History and such.
Oh. So our constitution allows for modification as the ground reality dictates? C'mon.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
