The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Look, if you can devise a way to enact responsible control, which does not limit the rights of our citizens and effectively minimizes gun crime, then I am all for it.

The problem is, 99% of what people try to push either duplicate the laws already in place, or, severely punish the 99.9% who peacefully own and use their firearms.

The solution isn't the guns.

Fix the middle class

Restore the American Dream

Correct the market

Give kids the upbringing they need, not hours of COD and Xbox. Give people a positive outlook on life, and get free aid to those who are struggling with mental health issues.

You point a finger at guns, but, look at the other strong indicators for mental well being.

Heroin OD rates are so high that states are now offering immunity to people who call in OD's, drug use is way way up. Crime to feed the drug problems is way up.

Fix the root issue, and the rest will fall into line. Going after guns isn't going to do a damn thing.
 
Seggy said:
Where did I admit I know nothing about the topic?



I have common sense.
Click to expand...
In every post you've made about guns for the past so many months.

Ah yes, common sense will solve a incredibly complex issue that is rooted heavily in BS rhetoric by, oh yes, more people that don't have any clue what they are talking about.
The vast majority of gun crime in this country is rooted in socio-economic issues, the mass murders in our lack of any sort of mental health.

But if you ever want anything to happen, you'll have to learn about the topic before you engage with people who do. That way we don't have to hear about ridiculous things like making the grip a different shape will stop murders. Or banning guns with plastic will save lives, but wood is fine.
 
Seggy said:
Keep making assumptions.
Click to expand...
Well, actually no. You haven't really answered those questions, you are kind of dodging the issue because you don't know. That's fine, simply say, "I don't know." I can respect a man who takes responsibility for his ignorance, I can't really do the same thing for a guy who doesn't acknowledge it.

I disagree with your stance on firearms, but it's not necessarily philosophically incorrect to be against firearm ownership and not really know anything about firearms. You can be against pollution and not understand the mechanisms by which pollution work. Though, just to be clear, I'm strongly in support of all firearms rights, and think we need to strengthen the 2nd amendment.
 
Seggy said:
I grew up around guns on my grandfathers farm growing up.
Click to expand...

How frequently to you attend training? When was the last time you took a class and were tested in gun laws for a permit?

Grew up was 20 years ago. A lot has changed since then. There is much more to gun owner ship than knowing which end to point the other way.

If sight a 16" barreled .223 at 50 yards, assuming a 2800fps muzzle velocity, how far above my aim point will my POI be at 100 yards? At what point will my POI again hit my aim point?

For a given ballistics coefficient, how do you calculate wind drift?

What twist rate do I want for a 5.56 bullet that weighs 77 grains?

If an intruder breaks into my house do I have a duty to retreat? What law allows me protection from civil suit if I shoot the intruder?

Is it legal to fire a warning shot? (Might surprise you)

Can I draw my gun to scare somebody away?

What actions remove my rights under castle doctrine?
 
Seggy said:
Where did I admit I know nothing about the topic?



I have common sense.
Click to expand...

So you're gonna protect us from "the shoulder thing that goes up."

Well I guess we can all sleep soundly at night.

If there is anything that the gun control lobby has demonstrated screaming common sense while it proposes legislation it's that it has no idea how firearms work, what makes them more or less lethal, and which ones are being used by criminals.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
I'm sure lots do, but I'd lay an even bet that a lot more conceal.

Not really sure why people get so worked up about it.

Remember the guy in NH who was carrying open outside of the presidential town hall and all the news media flipped out (while the secret service pretty much blew it off and said they weren't worried about the guy wearing a gun on his hip in view)
Click to expand...

In AZ, open carry was legal long before conceal carry was made legal. So alot more people carried in the open manner, if only for the legality of it for so long, although many more people likely carry concealed now that it's legal. But open carry is something you still see alot here, by any number of people. Tactically sound? Not in my opinion. But perfectly legal, aside from the specified prohibited places to carry.

Yeah the NH case was interesting indeed, especially with who was concerned and who wasn't. I'm sure in places where open carry is new or not common, that it would indeed invoke a double take by the average citizen to see someone carrying in that manner.
 
Seggy said:
Stick with the facts.

The open carry isn't working out like was expected. Private businesses simply don't trust gun owners to make the right decisions.
Click to expand...

I can see for a state where open carry is just newly legal, there being either apprehension, concern, or simple discomfort in seeing something that hasn't been commonly seen for so long.

To me it's just weird that it would be Texas of all places, with the wild west cowboy culture and all, where this would be felt. Just seems unusual. I'd have assumed that TX would be like AZ, where open carry would've been legal for ages; but I guess not. Indeed interesting.
 
MikeD said:
I can see for a state where open carry is just newly legal, there being either apprehension, concern, or simple discomfort in seeing something that hasn't been commonly seen for so long.

To me it's just weird that it would be Texas of all places, with the wild west cowboy culture and all, where this would be felt. Just seems unusual. I'd have assumed that TX would be like AZ, where open carry would've been legal for ages; but I guess not. Indeed interesting.
Click to expand...
I think we've had open carry here since statehood, but it's weird to see it in town. As soon as you leave the city, it's really really weird not to see it.
 
MikeD said:
I can see for a state where open carry is just newly legal, there being either apprehension, concern, or simple discomfort in seeing something that hasn't been commonly seen for so long.

To me it's just weird that it would be Texas of all places, with the wild west cowboy culture and all, where this would be felt. Just seems unusual. I'd have assumed that TX would be like AZ, where open carry would've been legal for ages; but I guess not. Indeed interesting.
Click to expand...

It's because too many Californians and Eastern Yankees moved to Texas.
 
MikeD said:
I can see for a state where open carry is just newly legal, there being either apprehension, concern, or simple discomfort in seeing something that hasn't been commonly seen for so long.

To me it's just weird that it would be Texas of all places, with the wild west cowboy culture and all, where this would be felt. Just seems unusual. I'd have assumed that TX would be like AZ, where open carry would've been legal for ages; but I guess not. Indeed interesting.
Click to expand...

It's kind of funny, but, by all data available, the Wild West wasn't t actually that wild. A gun shot of any form was bad news, medicine wasn't there to fix you up. Gangrene was nasty - so, outside of Hollywood and our idealism most people avoided gun violence and used them as tools. I forget where I read about it, but, if I recall there was an article that had pulled death records for a few areas in Texas and found that the gun violence rates were not too dissimilar to today.

Likewise I grew up in VT. You would see trucks parked at the capital with guns in the gun rack. The only real "rule" as posted at the city limits: discharge of long guns prohibited in city limits.


On another note:

3 days ago CA pushed to outlaw the bullet button and force people to permanently affix the magazine to the gun. If somebody knows how to shoot and knows their weapon, the rear takedown pin takes 2 seconds, from which you can easily push in 10 off a striper clip. I'm sure somebody will replace that rear pin with a catch and make it even faster.
e0923e8f40f28053670bc2270bbc1a7d.jpg
 
Last edited:
ppragman said:
So what, we do that stuff all the time.
Click to expand...
So you are refuting my non-facts with "so what?" that's funny.

ppragman said:
Meh. We shall see. Also, who the hell cares if the Iranians have a nuke?
Click to expand...
Everyone, especially Israel. Iran will, in a heartbeat nuke Israel. I know most of the folks here on JC could give a rats ass about Israel though. Then there is the threat of terrorism. Iran sponsors terrorism, and it's the terrorists that will nuke us or our allies.

ppragman said:
Anytime two nations sit down and start talking through their disagreements instead of killing one another's citizens it's a victory for all of mankind. I'd much rather we did this than carpet bomb Tehran.
Click to expand...
I agree. Unfortunately I think it was a bad deal that only delays the inevitable.

ppragman said:
So what?
Click to expand...
Again with "So what?".

ppragman said:
Bro, do you even physics? The Iranians cannot deliver a weapon to the CONUS. Hell, they couldn't deliver a weapon to Alaska or Hawaii. Do you understand the kind of distances and velocities involved in deliver and nuclear weapon that far? Not only that, but these people aren't idiots. There is no Iran if a missile even launches. Man I live on Kauai, we're testing ground based interceptors all the time out here - you think that Iran has a hope of delivering a nuclear payload to America in ten years unmolested while we're dumping billions into building machines and technologies to shoot down these sorts of threats? Not going to happen. Iran is glass moments after the missile leaves the pad. The Ayatollah is the "old guard" now - they're not stupid, they're not going to do something that jeopardizes the powerstructures they're at the top of.
Click to expand...

I never said they had a missile that could hit us. Hence the reason they sponsor terrorism. And if you think "mutually assured destruction" is a reason why Iran would never use a nuke, then you don't understand the guys in charge over there. That is exactly what they want! They want to bring about the return of the 12th Imam. In case you haven't heard about the 12th Imam read this.


ppragman said:
I can't really disagree with the direction the country is headed in financially. College tuition is one of many problems, but I don't think you have to worry about the boys being drafted. I have nothing to back that up, but I'm not worried about it, and I have 2 kids and a kid on the way.
Click to expand...
As a father you know you will worry about your kids until the day you die.
 
ppragman said:
I mean...I don't agree with a lot of the President's policies, but can't we all be freaking glad that the Iranians are coming to the table and we're ending decades of asinine policy of "well if we treat them like garbage long enough maybe they'll acquiesce to our demands?" This is an objectively good thing. What do you think would have happened to our sailors in 1984?
Click to expand...
They wouldn't have even touched our sailors in 1984.
 
Lawman said:
If there is anything that the gun control lobby has demonstrated screaming common sense while it proposes legislation it's that it has no idea how firearms work, what makes them more or less lethal, and which ones are being used by criminals.
Click to expand...

From an NYT editorial this weekend:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/some-inconvenient-gun-facts-for-liberals.html

So why does nothing get done? One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate. A classic of gun ignorance: New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top