2nd Amendment Discussion

  • @jammyjaybird I don’t see a problem with private ownership of nukes . Most people wouldn’t be able to afford one anyway . And if a rich person really wanted a nuke now a days they can have one built .

  • @jammyjaybird and the ideology behind owning an assault rifle is the 2nd amendment.

  • @iattacku said in 2nd Amendment Discussion:

    @boothe that is another good topic for the religion forum. The vast majority of Christians believes that Jesus is God but from reading the gospels anytime someone compares Jesus to God he is quick to point out that God is greater than him . He also pointed out that only the father knows when the second coming will happen not him

    I and the Father are one.

    Before Abraham was, I Am.

    It is true that Jesus slapped down some bad arguments, but nowhere does he say he is not God. Rather, he was making the point that they had darn well better appreciate the gravity of what they were saying.

    Interesting topic, but for the Religion forum. I guess this forum is for arguing with Jammy.


    Aurora: AR-15
    Orlando: AR-15
    Parkland: AR-15
    Las Vegas: AR-15
    Sandy Hook: AR-15
    Umpqua CC: AR-15
    Waffle House: AR-15
    Texas Church: AR-15
    San Bernardino: AR-15
    Santa Fe High School: AR-15

    It’s easy to show a list of mass shootings perpetrated with AR-15s if you pull them out of the larger data set.

    But yes, AR-15s are used in a big number of mass shootings.

    1.) Most common semi-auto long rifle platform in the US (partially because the Left hates it so much, giving it ‘cred’).

    2.) Many shootings are perpetrated by the homicidal equivalents of “script kiddies” who just copy what the previous shooters did. Social proof, if you will.

    Whichever semi-auto center-fire long gun is most common will be the one most used in school shootings. Very few kids planning to do this will give up because the “go-to” platform isn’t available. They’ll just go to a new one.


    the number of school shootings that have happened since the year 2000 around the world:
    ENGLAND: 0
    GREECE: 1
    SPAIN: 1
    INDIA: 1
    RUSSIA: 1
    CHINA: 3
    MEXICO: 4
    CANADA: 5
    GERMANY: 5
    USA: 213

    Yep, school shootings are out of control here.

    Question is, what are the violent death rates, both shooting and non-shooting? I don’t have stats on hand but I think we can all agree that shifting a death from one category to another isn’t an improvement.


    AR-15s have no place in civilian life.

    AR-15s are generally configured to fire 223, the civilian version of 556, which is a relatively weak round, which is why 223 is disallowed for deer hunting in many places. One reason the military used 556 is because wounding a conventional enemy removes three combatants (victim + 2 stretcher-bearers) while killing only removes one.

    US civilians will not be facing a foe under the Geneva Convention, so 223 is kind of a lousy round to standardize around, in my opinion. 308 would probably be a better choice because [insert interminable gun discussion here].

    Anyway, my main point is this: the main point of firearm ownership (as protected by 2AM at least) is to be comparably dangerous to conventional military forces. Private citizens owned cannons and used them in the War of 1812, as I recall.

    Powerful guns have a solid place in civilian life. If the AR-15 is removed, something else will take its place.


    When the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994, the number of people dying in mass shootings fell by 43%. After Republicans allowed the assault weapons ban to lapse in 2004, the number of gun massacres more than doubled.

    The Second Amendment was never intended to permit mass slaughter. It was intended to permit “a well regulated militia”.

    According to Gallup, 96% of Americans want universal background checks. The vast majority of gun owners are in favor of common sense gun safety laws.

    The NRA spent $55 million on the 2016 presidential election (half of which was apparently donated by the Kremlin). The NRA does not represent gun owners; it represents gun manufacturers, and their task is to help those manufacturers maximize profits from the sale of more weapons.

    Gun violence deaths started falling before the AWB and continued falling for years after the AWB sun-setted.

    Yeah, the Second Amendment was never intended to permit mass slaughter (I think laws against mass slaughter covered that). The First Amendment was never intended to permit Miley Cyrus. Both of these are the consequence of individual human agency. You seem to assume that the government is supposed to create a world where humans are structurally prevented from evil. What is a well-regulated militia? The militia is the whole of the people. Well-regulated means that we have competent weaponry.

    I don’t believe that Gallup poll for a minute. Hearsay as this is, I don’t know a single gun owner who wants that. Labeling something “common sense” doesn’t cause it to be a good idea, it’s just assuming the sale. “Common sense” only exists in an ideological framework; there is no common sense without a belief system to label it as such. I’m sure the Nazis only wanted common-sense Jew control.

    The NRA represents millions of gun owners, including me, except when they don’t go far enough or are stupid, such as when they moved against the First Amendment several years ago. They backpeddled and tried to justify themselves, which was disgusting. If they knowingly accepted campaigning money from the Kremlin then screw them – I expect my gun rights organizations to be squeaky-clean, like Everytown for Gun Safety.


    However, I still believe that reinstituting an assault weapons ban would be good overall, especially since assault weapons have no practical civilian purpose. Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford (both Republican presidents) supported the last ban, citing public opinion.

    Fighting tyranny is a practical civilian purpose.

    What did Reagan do right? He didn’t remove Paul Volker. That’s basically it. Screw Reagan and screw public opinion. I am not public property and neither are you.


    And before people here start misrepresenting my position with slippery slope arguments, NO, I’m not in favor of taking away any other weapons. We’re a violent country that loves its firearms; it’s our identity, and nothing will ever change that. The weight of history is too strong. But assault weapons are unnecessary for any reason except ideological ones. If you’re in favor of private ownership of AR-15s, you should theoretically be in favor of private ownership of nuclear missiles as well.

    Name one reason for anything that isn’t ideological.


    And before people here start misrepresenting my position with slippery slope arguments [snip] If you’re in favor of private ownership of AR-15s, you should theoretically be in favor of private ownership of nuclear missiles as well.

    AR-15s are a neutered version of an actual military weapon designed for infantry use. Anything the infantry can use should be available for us as well. Remember: when the Constitution was written the US did not have a standing army; it called up state militias for the common defense.

    Might a renewed AWB reduce school shootings? Quite possibly, but there are multiple millions of these things out there, each with a service life of 50-100+ years. They were around before school shootings as well.

    If we really want to reduce school shootings we should address the reasons people have for doing them. Government can’t fix family, government can’t fix society, government can’t fix drugs. These are problems that only have individual solutions. All government can do is environmental control, which is what the Left wants anyway. The Left believes that human evil is (largely) a result of incorrect herd management. If they could just figure out the right levers to pull, words to use, and drugs to inject, we would be good – as they see good.

    “They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people better.”

    Ain’t no shooting like the shooting gonna happen should they try to take these from us.

    Human rights are not a form of public policy. Human rights are not a fancy way euphemism for “public will at this moment.” Human rights exist even if every single person on earth despises or ignores them.

    I have the right to be consequential when it matters most. So do you.

  • @ransom said in 2nd Amendment Discussion:

    Anything the infantry can use should be available for us as well.

    I strongly disagree with this. That may have been true in 1787, but that is not true today. The weaponry is just too powerful.
    Thanks for the thoughtful response though.

  • @ransom this was a damn good comment

  • An ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion: The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.

  • Okie-dokie, @jammyjaybird has joined us here and for that I am ever so thankful. We will undoubtedly be moving the show here, now. @Ransom I cannot give you sufficient accolades for your comment. Very well put! As time permits I will address Jammy point for point. Stay tuned folks, this is about to get very interesting.

  • In the interests of an honest debate, let’s make sure we start from a common baseline: The Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States. “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”.

    That was from memory, I have no need to look it up. When I was in middle school I had the benefit of a U.S. History and Social Studies teacher who happened to be a retired Army colonel. He was a very wise man and dearly loved us children. I would say he was scrupulous in his honesty and integrity (my family knew him from the community). He said something in class one day I will never forget. He explained that the Second Amendment was not put in place so you could go hunting or even to defend yourself. No. He said “The Second Amendment is the final check and balance in our system of government.”

    Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the foundation upon which I will be debating.

  • I assert that keeping and bearing arms is an individual right above all else. We, as humans, as naked apes, don’t come equipped with claws, fangs, stingers & venom or even a heavy coat of hair. We don’t have an armored carapace or quills. We as humans are actually at quite a disadvantage to many other mammals. Left out in the elements or engaged in a life or death fight, we as humans are rather fragile.

    But what we do come equipped with is the most advanced computer that man can only dream of duplicating: The Human Brain. The Human Brain is a tool for creating weapons way beyond anything we can comprehend, and in the same vein the human brain can bring compassion, charity and comfort to others.

  • The Human Brain is capable of conceiving and developing the most heinous devices ever seen for creating death and destruction. From cross bows to machine guns on to thermonuclear weapons, humans have thought up an almost incomprehensible array of devices designed to hurt one another and break things. Why do we do this?

    There are various reasons, but for the same reason we band together in groups, it is primarily for power. There are many people who are convinced that if everyone will just do things their way, the world will be a better place. Or worse, they see what you and your group have and they want to take it from you. Naked and unarmed against another group that is also naked and unarmed, their chances of prevailing are questionable. But when they pick up rocks and sticks, the odds have changed significantly. Now the other group must also pick up rocks and sticks and think up ways to increase their lethality and the distance over which they can be effectively delivered. What you have is an “arms race” and this has been going on for millennia.

  • The Framers of the U.S. Constitution understood that humans wish to have power over each other and will do so under threat of force. They understood that one group will attempt to empower itself over other opposing groups through numbers and superior firepower. They also understood that when the means to inflict lethal force is widely distributed amongst the population in a free state, there is a credible threat of retaliation against bad government actors should tyranny and oppression reach a tipping point. This was the key reason for the Second Amendment; the guarantee of our individual right to possess equivalent firepower to the regular army of the day.

    This brings me to @jammyjaybird’s statement “That may have been true in 1787, but that is not true today. The weaponry is just too powerful.” If that is actually the case, then a government that is “by the people, for the people” has no business with “weaponry” that is “just too powerful” either. Why do they need 16" guns on massive battleships? Or cluster bombs or depleted uranium firing 30mm cannons in the nose of A-10 Warthogs or Sarin nerve gas? And for goodness sake, what do they need intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of delivering multiple warheads for?

    The answer is simple: The projection of power and the threat of “Mutually Assured Destruction” if self defense becomes necessary. The concept is indeed MAD, but most of us here have lived under that threat our entire lives. And it all goes back to humans picking up rocks and sticks and striving to increase their range and lethality.

  • So what about the AR-15 and similar semi-automatic small arms? I have heard it argued that the Framers had no concept of such weapons? Is that true? It is not. Witness the Girandoni repeating air rifle: “…around 1780 an enterprising Tyrolean gunsmith named Bartolomeo Girandoni developed a rugged new model air rifle that was soon adopted by the Austrian military. Produced in .46-caliber, the Girandoni was a quantum leap forward in weapons technology.” Source: http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/lewis-and-clarks-girandoni-air-rifle/

    We also have the Puckle gun which was listed in a 1722 shipping manifest as a “machine gun”, well before the Second Amendment was penned. Primitive and crew served though it may have been, the concept of multi-shot rapid fire weapons is hardly new. See this: http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Puckle_gun

  • Those are just two examples of man’s thoughtful efforts to increase his superiority over other men through advanced weapons technology. There are numerous other examples, such as battery guns, being employed in combat with devastating effectiveness all the way back to 1339. Source: http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1241 So the idea that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution could not conceive of small arms such as the AR-15 is dubious at best.

  • Another argument is that with high technology in weapons systems today, attempting to counter a modern military force with militiamen armed only with semi-automatic small arms and improvised munitions is an exercise in futility. After all, the U.S. military has armed drones, tanks, ships, radar, laser targeting systems, communications and logistics, et cetera, that we do not have as individuals. We might even hearken back to Revelation 13:4 Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? and see that it is pointless to fight the empire. And to engage their forces head on would certainly appear to be suicidal.

    But as we have seen in every modern conflict, the goal is seldom (if ever) to annihilate the populace of the targeted country or region. With no people left, there is no one to rule over and even though the conquerors have gained natural resources and territory, they have gained no additional power. Since a big part of the goal for expeditionary warfare is to subjugate the populace, there is only one timeless way to do this: “Boots on the ground.”

  • Our modern, high technology military is currently occupying Afghanistan with “Boots on the ground.” These are a primitive people compared to Rome the United States. One would think that they would simply knuckle under in the face of such overwhelming military superiority. Yet they still will not. What are their primary means of defense against a hostile invading army? Small arms. Like the USSR before them, the U.S. military is learning the hard way why Afghanistan is called “The Graveyard of Empires.” The human desire to live free and unfettered is indomitable. The drive for individual liberty will lead many of our kind to fight on well past the point that the weaker members of our species will find unreasonable.

    But without modern small arms, our choices with respect to the dictates of an occupying force and more particularly the caprice of their leaders, become comply or die. The AR-15 is our modern crossbow much as the semi-automatic handgun is our modern short sword and the high power rifle is our modern long bow. To think that the Framers intended to limit these individual weapons solely for government use shows a decided ignorance of their writings.

  • @jammyjaybird said in 2nd Amendment Discussion:

    Aurora: AR-15
    Orlando: AR-15
    Parkland: AR-15
    Las Vegas: AR-15
    Sandy Hook: AR-15
    Umpqua CC: AR-15
    Waffle House: AR-15
    Texas Church: AR-15
    San Bernardino: AR-15
    Santa Fe High School: AR-15

    Let’s expand on this list, since it targets a specific firearm that @jammyjaybird finds objectionable. You will find that handguns have been the preferred weapon for mass shootings (using two or more deaths as the standard) on the time line from the Columbine shooting in 1999 through the Hazard County Technical college shooting in 2013. Out of the 49 total mass shootings in that time frame only 12 involved all semi-automatic rifles (not just AR-15 variants), while 34 involved handguns. Of those 12 where semi-auto rifles were used, three incidents handguns were also involved. In five of the incidents the weapon type was undetermined. See this: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm

    Jammy argues that “You can’t discharge nearly as many rounds with a pistol as you can with an assault weapon.” That statement is false. From the preceding link we see that the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people exclusively with handguns. Primarily using a Glock 19, which has conventional magazines available capable of holding 33 rounds and drum magazines available with a 50 round capacity. Even when limited to 10 round magazines, a modestly trained operator can reload and resume firing a semi-automatic handgun in mere seconds. See this: https://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=glock+drum and this https://www.gunbroker.com/All/search?Keywords=glock 33 round magazine

  • In the case of the Parkland shooting the perpetrator, Nikolas Cruz, used 10 round magazines not “high capacity” magazines. Truth be told, the 30 round magazine is a “standard capacity” magazine for the AR-15 / M-4 platform. There are higher capacity magazines including drums available, but they tend to be unwieldy, hard to conceal, often unreliable and relatively expensive. Once again, the anti-gun crowd’s efforts to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds make good publicity but are as ineffective in reducing mass shootings as drug laws have proven to be in reducing drug trafficking and consumption. Prohibition never works against the truly determined.

  • @jammyjaybird said in 2nd Amendment Discussion:

    An ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion: The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.

    No, an ever growing body of left biased propaganda reaches that conclusion. All the while studiously ignoring the fact that back when we, the American public, could quite literally buy all manner of firearms (including genuine weapons of war, see this: http://americanshootingjournal.com/laughable-vintage-gun-ads/#oz52mcs6) by mail order, we did not have all these mass shootings. So what has changed? First of all, the push started in earnest to remove the moral foundation of our culture from our schools. By eliminating the Ten Commandments and basic concepts of right and wrong and replacing them with moral relativism we effectively excised the internal restraints against this type of behavior from the minds of our offspring.

    Then with the rise of the feminist movement, the vilification of “toxic masculinity” and the labeling of normal boyhood behaviors as “mental disorders”, we have attempted to suppress the expression of “maleness” in our sons. With zero tolerance policies and feel good initiatives such as the Promise Program at Parkland, we have created a hotbed for frustrated and disenfranchised young men who have been picked on and bullied unmercifully to develop into the monsters we’ve witnessed recently.

    Add psychotropic drugs to the mix to suppress normal young male behavior, categorized as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or what have you, in at least one out of 1000 cases (the threshold for a black box drug warning of “homicidal ideation”), you have a bunch of time bombs on your hands.

    Despite the fact that Nikolas Cruz, the Parkland shooter, had numerous prior contacts with law enforcement (both local and federal) and was reported as unstable by family, he was still able to pass a background check and purchase his weapon legally. The failure in this case was the “progressive” Promise Program that shielded criminal activities by students at Parkland from law enforcement intervention.

  • After 9/11 our motto was, “Never forget.”

    A psycho shot 500 hundred people in Las Vegas last year and the country just…forgot.
    Then a psycho shot up Parkland High School … and the country just forgot.
    We’ll forget this psycho in Texas too.

    Until one day we won’t, and there will be born a movement of moral reform (probably not legal reform, given the state of DC) that will forcefully remind people to lock up their firearms at home. Much like Mothers Against Drunk Driving in the 1960s forced people to address their own careless drunk driving, this movement will force gunowners (30% of the population) to address their own careless weapon safety habits. Americans have a long history of moral crusaders demanding reform, and this will be the next one. It won’t be us, the older people, who spearhead this movement. It’ll be the youngest generation who demand it, the ones who’ve grown up tolerating stupid “active-shooter drills” that force them to hide in the closets of their classrooms, and who resent society for forcing this ridiculousness upon them.

    A full-scale weapons seizure is the slippery-slope nightmare of gun-happy right-wingers, but it’ll never happen. There are 300 million weapons in this nation and we have a very aggressive gun culture.

    Personally, I don’t understand that gun culture, since I’m more interested in building my career and playing sports and reading books and chasing tail than I am in firing weapons – but hey everybody is welcome to pursue their passions, even if they look like walking caricatures as they do it. (BTW all my international friends are stupified by American gun culture. They cannot understand how anybody could be so passionately in love with firearms. I share that view, but to each his own.)

    Anyways, here’s my prediction: There will be a young moral reformer, most likely a shooting victim himself, who leads a full-scale social media movement to “lock up your guns at home” or to mandate use of fingerprint scanners or who knows what. Some of the Parkland kids have already tried to seize this crown, but since none of them were actually wounded, they lack moral persuasion. The reformer I envision will be a teenager whose moral authority cannot be ignored or mocked, maybe an honors student who had half his jaw blown off or something. It will be a white student too, since most gunowners are whites, and white skin and a white voice will resonate more powerfully for them.

    There could be minor legal action accomplished at the federal level (hopefully a new assault weapons ban), but since Congress can’t even tie its own shoelaces right now, I doubt it’ll happen. At the state level you’ll see a lot more action happening, maybe even neighboring states cooperating legislatively.


  • @jammyjaybird said in 2nd Amendment Discussion:

    The NRA does not represent gun owners; it represents gun manufacturers, and their task is to help those manufacturers maximize profits from the sale of more weapons.

    This is a patently false statement. We are now over 6 million strong. Over half the funding for the NRA comes from dues paying members. The rest comes from donations, some of which do come from firearms manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers. But the NRA is an actual grass-roots organization funded by people like me; it is not an artificial construct set up by billionaires to push their personal agendas. There are a lot myths circulated about the NRA. Here are ten interesting points most folks do not know: https://mic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear#.hGn0cc1VW

Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to A Kings Castle was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.