Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House > facebook debate between me and an almost friend. lol

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-09-2013, 12:42 AM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jjfuller1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: oakfield,ny
Posts: 4,180
Liked 972 Times on 645 Posts
Likes Given: 538

Default facebook debate between me and an almost friend. lol

It is not a new issue, the 2nd amendment calls for a well REGULATED militia with the framework & supervision provided by the government.
The carrying of firearms has been regulated by law or local ordinance before, especially in the days of the west that the NRA holds in nostalgic reverance. Dodge City, Earp, Masterson, Tilman and others enforced no gun ordinances.
I invite someone to explain to me with a logical arguement why:
We need military style weapons that even as a semi auto can sustain a high rate of fire.... (when I did hunt I usually opted for single shot weapons. If I didn't get the kill on the first shot it would be a bloody miracle if I did on a second shot.)
The sale of conversion kits for the military style guns that can change them to full auto is legal...
Do we really need to have large capacity clips...suppression fire on wood chucks...
Do we need bullets that fragment on impact leaving grapefruit size exit wounds...
Why can't we go after those that own or sell illegal firearms...
Why can't we enact sentances for crimes committed with a weapon to something equal to or more severe than the Rockefeller drug laws...

I would also be interested to hear arguments that transcend the politics and religion that is going on.

Anyone up to the challenge?

me:

Well here is my take. I fully agree with 2 of your point’s. yes, we should go after all of those that break current firearm laws. We have a lot of firearm laws on the books along with many, many others. If memory serves me correct our very own federal government broke some of theses laws with the selling of arms to Mexico. The holder case. But we probly forgot about that, it was so last year.

I also agree that we should change our policy on how convict’s are sentenced and stronger more severe terms be carried out.

On to the points I don’t agree on.

I have not seen anywhere where the words framework and supervision by our government are used in the 2nd amendment. However I do see the words SHALL NO BE INFRINGED.
For your reference. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am2.html

Your participation in reenactments should be a prime example of how unrealistic your claim for why we need military style weapons. Every style firearm ever made has been issued and used in the military. In the early years the military had brown bess’s, good old flintlocks. As time went on and technology advanced they upgraded to bolt actions, and lever actions and now semi, and full auto.
You don’t still drive your great grandpa’s old model T do you? No, you have the option of buying and driving whatever vehicle fits your needs, budget, and design preference.

AR-15 rifles are GREAT for hunting. Not because they are semi automatic. But they are extremely accurate, and come in a big variety of calibers depending on game.

The last time I checked, even POSSESSING the internal parts that COULD change it from semi to full auto is Illegal. If the parts happen to come to a Federally licensed dealer they are suppose to IMMEDIATELY destroy and report them.

As far as “clip’s”( its really magazine’s). I don’t feel the term high capacity is accurate. How can a gun that is designed to have a 30 round magazine have a “ high capacity” 30 round magazine? if that’s the amount of rounds it was made to have? Shouldn’t it really be called a standard capacity magazine?
See if you can do some simple math with me. The Virginia tech shooter from 2007 used 15 round magazines in the pistol he used. He inflicted 32 deaths and 17 more injured. Can you explain to me how that after the first 15 round’s were fired more people were still injured?, what if he used 5 or 10 round magazines? Would he still not have gotten the same outcome?

FRAGMENTING bullets are used for range use to help reduce the possibility of the shooter sustaining an injury from ricochet. They do not serve any other purpose. Now hollow point’s, full metal jacket’s, spire point’s, flat nose, round nose truncated cone all serve hunting, and self defense rolls. Perhaps you should study the real effects of bullets before jumping to conclusions that are incorrect.

I have to state that it upsets me that when someone performs a horrible crime, that many blame the tool, instead of the person using the tool.

him:
Continuing from the last post. I do have a model T of a fire arm, I did have a single shot bolt action rifle and a single action break shotgun. Worked fine for hunting. Yes, we need to consider what latest and greatest is available to the public. I'm glad to hear that conversion kits are illegal now. At one time they weren't. Personally saw the mail order adds. As far as bullets I am correct in stating that there are different types that have differing affects on the body. There are bullets designed to do the maximum amount damage by a variety of methods.


Brian Park Semantics, clips / magazines really? Why do you need them. The VA tech shooter had more than one clip. Simple math? The idea is if you limit the number of rounds without reloading gives potential victims a chance. So no he may have not have gotten the same outcome. Perhaps, you should read / learn what law enforcement people are saying. It really upsets me that when a horrible crime happens and we are left wondering how we can prevent it from happening again, that any reasonable regulation of weapons is considered some sort of heresy. And please don't tell me that everyone should carry a side arm. Can you imagine what incidents of road rage we would have? We need to have thoughtful legislation that can affectively enforced.


Brian Park I certainly not advocating eliminating gun ownership. Its not just about regulation of legal firearms, its the illegal firearms. I'm willing to bet that the crimes committed in those areas of strict control are committed with illegal or illegally obtained firearms. To me the solution to reducing gun deaths will involve:
• Gun registration that effectively tracks the gun keeping it in the legal mainstream
• Limiting the lethality of guns available
• Uniform sentencing of all crimes committed with a gun.
• The sale & possession of illegal guns needs to be given a higher priority in enforcement and sentence
• Mandate that any therapist that believes a patient may be a danger to himself or others require the said patients firearms (a stretch)

me:
Brian, I wasn’t at all saying that single shots, lever actions, bolt actions, or pump actions don’t serve a purpose. I was just stating that AR’s serve an EQUAL purpose. All of the platforms are good for hunting, and it comes down to shooter preference.

Bullets are another issue. I don’t see any problem with trying to inflict the most damage possible to someone who is trying to attack me, my wife, or my kids. If a bad guy was to attack I want to make sure his attack is as short as possible and not dragged out. Same for hunting, I want the animal to fall as soon, and humanly as possible. Along with shot placement, the bullet can help or deter the outcome I’m intending.

You may call it is semantics, I call it grammar, and research. If I was to condemn or be against something shouldn’t I at least make my self knowledgeable of the subject before passing final judgement?

So are you stating that I as a legal UNITE STATES LAW ABIDING CITIZEN should be required to only have ONE magazine per firearm? That is just nuts. When I have an hour of range time do I want to have to load my one magazine over and over? that’s like limiting yourself to one gas tank fill up per week. Sure you can make it if you drive slow and, gas efficient. But realistically how many people do that? Are you willing to change your driving habits if a law went into effect stating you are limited to 10 gallons of gas per week with no refills?

I don’t believe everyone should carry a firearm. If you are not mentally ready for the outcome that could happen if that firearm is to be used you may make mistakes. That could be shooting the wrong person, or at the wrong time, shooting when it was not needed. But I bet you almost all of those who carry seek out and get more training involving such things as when to shoot, what will happen and are you ready for the consquences. It’s not mandatory, but I have evaluated the options and have come to my decision. Take this for evidence: http://minutemennews.com/2012/12/oregon-mall-shooting-brave-citizen-with-concealed-carry-may-have-saved-lives/

3 days before the CT shooting. Just the presence of a law abiding civilian made the difference.


• Gun registration that effectively tracks the gun keeping it in the legal mainstream. I ask
How will this be enforced? Is the FBI going to post guard in my house to make sure no one steals my high priced firearms?

• Limiting the lethality of guns available.
A bb gun, a foot, a knife, hands, rope, cars. All cause lethality. Are we limiting those?

• Uniform sentencing of all crimes committed with a gun.
Already agreed to this.. If a bad guy does wrong he should face a stiff penalty!

• The sale & possession of illegal guns needs to be given a higher priority in enforcement and sentence.
Again agreed, if our officals that were at fault for the border guards death can’t be properly delt with how can we then try to enforce this on the lesser crimes?? Key word, ILLEGAL.

• Mandate that any therapist that believes a patient may be a danger to himself or others require the said patients firearms (a stretch).
Something along those lines, however not straight out confiscation, perhaps. A law that says he has to render them to a family member, or up for sale within a certain time limit.
• The sale & possession of illegal guns needs to be given a higher priority in enforcement.
True!!!

So I copied this from you ‘ its the illegal firearms. I'm willing to bet that the crimes committed in those areas of strict control are committed with illegal or illegally obtained firearms”

So if we have laws that are already on the books that make these crimes, and firearms that are used in crimes Illegal. How will putting new laws into effect change this? If the police already have shown that they can not enforce the laws as they are written. How can we expect that new laws would help change anything???

Look at the three recent mass shootings. Whats the laws that are broken?
1. A firearm is stolen.
2.Possession of a weapon with intent to commit a crime
3. Murder


Please explain how making more laws will keep bad guys from breaking theses already existing laws?

__________________
I have been a silent witness
to all of America's finest hours.
But my finest hour comes
when I am torn into strips and used as bandages
for my wounded comrades on the battlefield,
When I fly at half-mast to honor my soldiers,
Or when I lie in the trembling arms
of a grieving mother
at the graveside of her fallen son.

Last edited by jjfuller1; 01-09-2013 at 12:44 AM.
jjfuller1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 01-09-2013, 12:49 AM   #2
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Detroit,mi
Posts: 2,339
Liked 501 Times on 319 Posts
Likes Given: 109

Default

Stop arguing on FB

use this for discussion points
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/01/06/1-gun-control-has-a-clear-record-of-failure.html

__________________
partdeux is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 02:23 PM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
tri70's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Siloam Springs,Arkansas
Posts: 1,324
Liked 540 Times on 324 Posts
Likes Given: 2178

Default

Because gun control works so well in Chicago!

The justice system keeps letting the worst of human kind walk the streets and inflict injury on the weak. Guns save the lives of the weak against those who are evil and would not care who they hurt.

__________________

Remember the battle of Athens, TN!

"Work as if you were to live 100 Years, Pray as if you were to die To-morrow." --Benjamin Franklin

tri70 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 11:10 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Blueguns's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 2,000 miles Northwest of Bill's Laundromat, Bar & Grill, CA
Posts: 2,001
Liked 538 Times on 379 Posts
Likes Given: 273

Default

You're doing a good job here! Keep us posted.

__________________

-Matt

Blueguns is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 11:34 PM   #5
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 223
Liked 60 Times on 41 Posts
Likes Given: 15

Default

The second amendment says:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Note the comma between "state" and "the right ..."

There are two statements there; one related to a militia being necessary for the security of a free state, and the second statement that the right of of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

They are not dependent on each other.

Another argument I've heard is about how the Bill of Rights, Second Amendment only applied to muskets; that the framers couldn't have had any idea of the modern weapons of today ... hence, new weapons are not covered.

If someone believes that, then we can also toss the First Amendment out for everything that's not a person standing in the square (theater, auditorium ...) speaking, and newspapers. Electronic media (TV, Cable, anything on a computer and/or carried over the network, a telephone, radio, etc.) can also be restricted or eliminated, or made illegal, since the framers couldn't in their wildest imagination dream of any of it and the way it's currently abused by the Mainstream / Lamestream media.

What's good for one amendment is good for all.

The framers made provisions to adapt the Constitution to "modern times" with a process to generate amendments to do so. Unless changed by the constitutional process, the Constitution stands as written and amended.

__________________
scottmac is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 01:22 AM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jjfuller1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: oakfield,ny
Posts: 4,180
Liked 972 Times on 645 Posts
Likes Given: 538

Default

he replied but it was hard to copy in the way he replied. he added on after each section i wrote. but mostly hes still contesting that something needs to be deone without conceding that i was in the right. lol. i love guns, and the 2A

__________________
I have been a silent witness
to all of America's finest hours.
But my finest hour comes
when I am torn into strips and used as bandages
for my wounded comrades on the battlefield,
When I fly at half-mast to honor my soldiers,
Or when I lie in the trembling arms
of a grieving mother
at the graveside of her fallen son.
jjfuller1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 01:41 AM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jpyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sewell,NJ
Posts: 4,815
Liked 761 Times on 441 Posts
Likes Given: 456

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottmac View Post
The second amendment says:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Note the comma between "state" and "the right ..."

There are two statements there; one related to a militia being necessary for the security of a free state, and the second statement that the right of of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

They are not dependent on each other.

Another argument I've heard is about how the Bill of Rights, Second Amendment only applied to muskets; that the framers couldn't have had any idea of the modern weapons of today ... hence, new weapons are not covered.

If someone believes that, then we can also toss the First Amendment out for everything that's not a person standing in the square (theater, auditorium ...) speaking, and newspapers. Electronic media (TV, Cable, anything on a computer and/or carried over the network, a telephone, radio, etc.) can also be restricted or eliminated, or made illegal, since the framers couldn't in their wildest imagination dream of any of it and the way it's currently abused by the Mainstream / Lamestream media.

What's good for one amendment is good for all.

The framers made provisions to adapt the Constitution to "modern times" with a process to generate amendments to do so. Unless changed by the constitutional process, the Constitution stands as written and amended.
In 18th Century usage the phrase "well regulated" was known to mean in proper working fashion or operating as expected. In the context of The Constitution it means just that, it never meant regulated in the sense that many interpret it today as organized or controlled by government.

So putting the 2A in the proper context, both phrases mean in essence...To have a properly functioning militia, the people's right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves shall not be infringed.

Again, militia was at the time used to describe "the people", yes the same people whose rights were being affirmed. Arms meant a weapon, plain and simple...not a musket. So if the arms of the military and police are today the M4 then the people are guaranteed the right to that same M4.
__________________

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Jpyle is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Firearms and Facebook Ericreed22 Legal and Activism 12 11-08-2012 05:54 PM
Facebook + The U.S. Government PrimePorkchop Politics, Religion and Controversy 5 08-14-2012 02:34 PM
Facebook and Website angeLoaded General Handgun Discussion 5 03-25-2011 04:21 PM