Nice to know guns are only used for home protection per some

[Duckhunter935]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12625507


Never had to use mine for that thank goodness but I do like to target shoot with my 15 and 20 round magazines.

So how are they going to get rid of the hundreds of millions of magazines beyond the magic 10 rounds?

[NYC_SKP]

1. Make no mistake, they won't stop at ten rounds. Look at what California almost did:

Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday vetoed seven gun bills, including an effort to outlaw all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. But he signed 11 others, including a groundbreaking ban on lead ammunition in hunting.

snip

Most significant among the vetoed bills was SB374 by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, which would have added all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines to the state's list of banned assault weapons. In his veto message, Brown said California already has some of the nation's strictest gun laws and that other bills he signed will make them even stronger.

It's a shame because Steinberg is otherwise a great legislator and friend of the environment.

It's not even about target shooting. It's about the constitutional right to be armed and to not be too prohibitively limited in what arms we might want to keep.

There are other, far better, ways to address violence.

[Loudly]

2. The so-called "right" to be armed was simply a gesture of appeasement.

Appeasing skeptics of a central government at the nation's founding.

We are soooo over that.

Any such so-called "right" was invalidated by the Civil War and rendered moot by Lee's surrender at Appomattox.

Armed rebellion is never legitimate in this country.

[Duckhunter935]

3. The so-called "right" to be armed

Has been upheld numerous times by the USSC and also in many state constitutions. So yes there is a right as long as you are not prohibited by law.

[Loudly]

5. Fails logic.

Empowering shooter to deprive victim of all their genuine rights?

Don't think so, sorry.

[seattledo]

7. Exactly

Saying someone has a right to a gun means that you are taking the right to live from others.

[Ranchemp.]

8. How does the right to own a gun mean that you're taking the right to live

from others?

[Loudly]

10. They are mutually exclusive, and cannot co-exist.

What are Constitutional rights supposed to mean if one person is empowered to deprive others of them at his or her whim?

Treating the 2A as a "right" is to devalue genuine rights to farcical insignificance.

[gejohnston]

11. actually they can

because in your vision, someone who is larger and stronger can deprive someone who is handicapped, old, less athletic etc. at whim and without fear.

[Loudly]

14. Or, from the catechism of the gun culture:

God made Man and Sam Colt made them equal.

(Assuming that the weak, innocent, infirm etc. are able to fire first.)

[Lizzie Poppet]

34. Precisely.

My own (now deleted) response was considerably less polite...

The idea that the right to tools of self-defense is somehow incompatible with other rights is absurd on its face. Abrogation of rights is a matter of actions, not objects.

[Ranchemp.]

12. Guess what there Loudly,

99.9% of firearms owners will never use their firearms to harm another human.
And until the 2A is repealed (won't happen), then it is just as much a right as the rest of the rights.

[Straw Man]

17. Ah yes, the old song ...

What are Constitutional rights supposed to mean if one person is empowered to deprive others of them at his or her whim?

You seem to believe that the Second Amendment provides immunity from murder charges. It doesn't.

[Loudly]

26. Of enormous comfort to the dead and grieving. n/t

[Straw Man]

27. So you believe in "pre-crime"?

Pre-emptive removal of rights? Where does it stop?

[Eleanors38]

21. Compelling logic, indeed. Mind like a steel trap.

[spin]

23. What if the person who has a gun is attacked by a person with a weapon? ...

In your opinion does the person have a right to defend his life and his health?

The right of self-defense (according to U.S. law) (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in a level of violence, called reasonable force or defensive force, for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

self-defense

n. the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault, battery or homicide. The force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from apparent harm (not just an empty verbal threat) or to halt any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to continue the attack or use excessive force. Examples: an unarmed man punches Allen Alibi, who hits the attacker with a baseball bat. That is legitimate self-defense, but Alibi cannot chase after the attacker and shoot him or beat him senseless. If the attacker has a gun or a butcher knife and is verbally threatening, Alibi is probably warranted in shooting him. Basically, appropriate self-defense is judged on all the circumstances. Reasonable force can also be used to protect property from theft or destruction. Self-defense cannot include killing or great bodily harm to defend property, unless personal danger is also involved, as is the case in most burglaries, muggings or vandalism.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1909

Is it your opinion that an armed criminal has the right to kill or severely injure a person and his victim has no right to defend himself?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. Defense

"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." - St. Augustine

[spin]

29. Excellent quote. (n/t)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. I always thought so.

[NYC_SKP]

4. First time I've heard that theory: Second Amendment rendered invalid at end of civil war.

I don't even want to know the thinking behind that.

If anything, the Civil War led to expansion of Second Amendment rights to more citizens: African Americans.

[Straw Man]

16. It's an old song ...

... that was sung Loudly by Shares United on this very forum in years gone by.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. ...and Shares still sings it Loudly to this day

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. What's this WE shit?

The US gained independence through armed rebellion. Exactly what is it that you believe makes this country so magic that rebellion will never be necessary or appropriate?

[Loudly]

13. The proponents of slavery were absolutely sure of the righteousness of their cause.

This is the quintessential proof that passion and conviction cannot be relied upon as justification to take up arms.

Any such justification fails for all time by said example.

The Covenant of Appomattox absolutely preempts the argument that some individual "right" to bear arms exists, persists or survives.

Guns and ammunition might be suffered as a temporary political indulgence.

But a "right?" No. Wholly inconsistent with genuine rights.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. There's a difference

"This is the quintessential proof that passion and conviction cannot be relied upon as justification to take up arms."

There is a difference between having a passionate belief and being correct.

"The Covenant of Appomattox absolutely preempts the argument that some individual "right" to bear arms exists, persists or survives."

I've read that claim a few times and have yet to read any substantive reasoning for it but I am interested in reading one. A brief statement or link to one or even some key words/date range/name(s) to search for would be fine.



Please define "right".

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. "A brief statement or link to one or even some key words/date range/name(s) to search for...

...would be fine."

An eminently reasonable request, save for the fact that such references
do not exist- the former sharesunited speaks entirely ex recto...

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. It appears sharesLoudly is studiously ignoring you...

...probably because they are peddling bullshit and know it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. More like hiding...

...but why... I can't say. After all, I'm a nice guy.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. Awkward questions tend to have that effect on certain people

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

44. Now for a really "awkward" question

Where does one find a tree with such useless, stupid and low-hanging, BS fruit excuses such as '...don't bother ever considering the need for armed rebellion because of Appomattox'? IMHO, one would need a magic divining rod and a couple tubes of glue for each nostril to find such a tree.

[Jenoch]

18. Armed rebellion has happened in the U.S.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

[petronius]

6. Makes perfect sense to me! Consider:

1. Violent criminals have a tendency to empty the magazine,
   
2. police seem to have a tendency to empty the magazine,
   
3. legitimate self-defense shooters have a tendency to fire a few rounds or none at all.

Therefore, it makes sense to restrict magazine capacity for that third group!

(And I do understand that the notion of limiting magazine sizes for legitimate users is intended to eventually curtail their availability to criminal users. Which makes a certain amount of sense, except that IMO the whole magazine capacity issue is a distraction. Absent the high-profile active-shooter events, in which magazine capacity may or may not have played a role, how many criminal, accidental or suicide deaths/injuries would be affected by magazine limits? Like the AWB, magazine capacity discussions are noisy, time-consuming tangents that nibble around the edges of the topic, but don't get us close to any sort of real public benefit...)

[Larsonb]

30. That estimate (hundreds of millions) may be low. I've seen estimates in excess of 2 billion.

[TBF]

31. Have you now?

Where did you see those "estimates"?

[Starboard Tack]

33. I'm sure you'll survive.

If it were demonstrated to your satisfaction that the death toll would be significantly reduced by limiting magazine capacity to 5 rounds, would you support it? Or is it more important to you that you don't have to swap mags while target shooting? I know that's 2 questions in one, so don't lose your concentration.
BTW, they (the mystical they) don't have to get rid of the hicap mags. They need to be restricted to secure areas at ranges and competition venues. They should be stamped and registered and owners should be responsible and accountable, as they should be for their firearms.
Accountability laws would accomplish more than all the bullshit token legislation.

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. If such a thing could actually be properly demonstrated, I'd support it.

That said, I expect no such demonstration to be forthcoming. Every statistic I've seen relevant to this point would seem to indicate that magazine capacity isn't an important factor. I consider such limits, where they've been enacted, to be "security theater" with no practical effect. As you say, accountability laws would do much, much more. Secure storage mandates (for example) have the potential to accomplish something.

And that's just for the c. 10k firearms homicides per annum. the other 20k or so are suicides. One shot fired in virtually all cases...

[Starboard Tack]

37. I tend to agree, it may be more "security theater"

But if it could be properly demonstrated, then we're on the same page.

Much more important is accountability and, as you say "safe storage mandates".
I would also add to that, any technological advances that enhance safety, such as biometrics, should be applied. I think one of my greatest fears, if I carried, would be that someone might manage to use my gun against myself or others. But every time I or anyone else suggests such a thing, we are told it's impossible, won't work or a thief will somehow get around it (Superhacker).

[Lizzie Poppet]

39. We're on the same page on a lot of points, I'd say.

I'd also add stringent penalties for straw purchasers and universal background checks (the NICS system could be made accessible to all while still retaining security) to name just a couple reasonable steps that would have a positive effect. No single step is a panacea, of course, but I think a cumulative effect is very possible.

Ending the insane War on Drugs might well be the single biggest step we could take in reducing homicide in the US. We're finally starting to see the light on that point, too...

[gejohnston]

36. no such demostration is coming

because one can look at history. Until the late 1980s, most US gun owners viewed semi auto pistols as "European" and preferred revolvers, as did most police departments and the US Air Force. If they had a semi auto, it was a single stack 1911 or pocket pistol. The 9mm round was "European" and not US mainstream. While the 13 round mag came with the Browning P35 in the 1930s, it was the only one until Smith and Wesson made one in the late 1950s, it was never that popular for he above reasons. They may have sold well in European and Canadian gun shops, but no so much here. There was no evidence their introduction started any trend. There is no evidence California's law (or Canada's ten rounds for pistols and five rounds for rifle limit) has done anything positive or negative.

[Starboard Tack]

38. Appreciate the history lesson. Thanks.

You always have good info, not always relevant, but interesting, just the same.

[gejohnston]

40. You're welcome,

but there is relevance, just takes a while to get there. In this case, the magazines existence had no effect so I doubt their disappearance would have an effect.
In the history of Tammany Hall and Chicago lesson, the point was that gangs and the violence they bring flourishes when city hall is corrupt. NY State rep Tim Sullivan, author of New York's licensing law in 1911, was a gangster who used gun control for the benefit of his protection racket. In Chicago today, the gangs and city council members use each other for their own benefit. The alderman protect the gangs from the cops, while the gangs help keep them in office. That is beyond the usual crony-ism, union busting, that Chicago is famous for. When citizens in those affected affected areas want something done about their kids being caught in the cross fire between two drug dealers, city hall sends has a town hall meeting with distractions like "its those lax gun laws" and "its those hicks in Montana dumping guns on our streets" sort of thing.

Most alarming, both law enforcement and gang sources say, is that some politicians ignore the gangs’ criminal activities. Some go so far as to protect gangs from the police, tipping them off to impending raids or to surveillance activities—in effect, creating safe havens in their political districts. And often they chafe at backing tough measures to stem gang activities, advocating instead for superficial solutions that may garner good press but have little impact.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/15/gangs-and-politicians-in-_n_1151553.html

Of course once in awhile something good does happen. Remember the young lady that sang at Obama's inauguration who was cut down by a couple of drug dealers (one of which was on probation for illegal gun possession)? Their capture had nothing to do with witness cooperation or good police work. One of the city altermen knew which gang leaders and "encouraged" them to deliver the culprits to the cops.

[Starboard Tack]

41. What? Corruption at City Hall? Say it ain't true.

Seems like Chicago has a history of that and NYC, though since Dinkins, much has been cleaned up. I'm no fan of Giuliani or Bloomie, but the Dems in NYC had reached a level of corruption that truly poisoned the place. It's healthy to switch parties sometimes. Like not always sleeping on one side.

[gejohnston]

42. It isn't the party, its the individuals

There are certain core values of each party, or one happens to be among the interest groups groups that each tries to appeal to, but ultimately it is the individuals and the system they happened to be in. Chicago Republican Paul McKinley, who ran to fill Jessie Jackson Jr's seat, did 20 years for armed robbery and assault.
Switching parties doesn't do anything. The key is to replace the crooks with be best and most honorable individuals.

[Starboard Tack]

43. Yeah, but croneyism creeps in when one party stays in power too long.

Sometimes it's good to clean house. I'm not too familiar with Chicago politics, never having lived there. My main experiences in the US have been in NYC, LA and West Virginia and I've seen corruption in all three, but change has usually been beneficial.
Like tilling the soil.