2nd Amendment Discussion
Our modern, high technology military is currently occupying Afghanistan with “Boots on the ground.” These are a primitive people compared to
Romethe 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:
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.
jammy last edited by
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
Let’s contrast the truly grass-roots NRA, the oldest civil rights advocacy group in the U.S., with the astro-turf #MarchForOurLives movement that appeared to spontaneously spring up from concerned students after the Parkland school shooting.
“March For Our Lives is created by students across the country who will no longer risk their lives waiting for someone else to take action to stop the epidemic of mass school shootings,” claims a permit application for the event in the nation’s capital. Ironically, the application for the permit was filed by Women’s March organizer Deena Katz. The Women’s March, of course, became infamous last year after one of its key leaders, Islamist Linda Sarsour, was exposed as an advocate of Sharia law for America. Other leading forces in the Women’s March include tax-funded abortion giant Planned Parenthood, which kills over 325,000 American preborn babies every year.”
In fact #MarchForOurLives was heavily funded by wealthy leftists and the Hollywood “usual suspects” who have no problem surrounding themselves with armed men for their own protection. Let’s wait and see if any of them are so principled as to only hire unarmed security details (hint: don’t hold your breath). No, gun control is only for the rest of us, not for the elite. And the elite are determined to attempt to strip us of this fundamental human right, especially the ultra-wealthy.
“MoveOn. org, which Soros has lavishly funded with millions in donations over the years, has sent out millions of e-mails urging people to get involved with the phony “March For Our Lives” events. On March 7, the radical Soros-backed group even boasted publicly of its role in the “student” movement, thanking its members who have “contributed to our work supporting student-led organizing” and taking on the NRA.” Yeah…grass roots alright…
And if the New American is too “right wing” for you, here’s what BuzzFeed has to say about it: https://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/parkland-teens-organization?utm_term=.lwY5N8xkJ#.se6adLq7M
@jammyjaybird “A psycho shot 500 hundred people in Las Vegas last year and the country just…forgot.” No, many of us did not forget and still want the truth. When some uncomfortable questions started to arise about the alleged perpetrator’s connections to the government, other players that were not investigated, eye-witness accounts that ran counter to the official narrative and a lack of motive for the shooting, the media (probably encouraged by the FBI) dropped coverage. This is what happens when a government sting operation goes sour. It’s called a cover-up.
True Pundit continued to follow it and found out some rather interesting things. My take from the very beginning was that Paddock was a paid government informant who was working with an ISIS cell (or some other unsavory characters like drug cartel members) to set up a weapons buy. One of the LVPD officers, Dave Newton, when describing Paddock’s room said "All kinds of monitors and electrical equipment he had in there. It just looked like almost a gun store.” These were all high end weapons too, no junk.
One of the telling things is that Paddock paid off his $100,000 casino marker the Friday night before the shooting. From Wayne Allen Root who is a Vegas local and talk show host: “Paddock owed MGM $100,000. On Friday night before the massacre Paddock won $100,000 playing video poker. If he was planning to die on Sunday he certainly would have blown it on hookers and cocaine. Or bought a Maserati and had it shipped to his girlfriend. Or gambled even higher amounts with the $100,000. But that’s not what Paddock did. Instead he took the $100K and paid off his $100K MGM marker. He paid off his debt in full? Why would a crazed killer do something so responsible? Why would a suicidal man do that?” Good question.
Here’ the 20 valid questions Root raised about this “lone nut shooter” scenario: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/fed-up-vegas-native-asks-20-questions-about-mgm-shooting-nobody-will-answer/
And @jammyjaybird I want you to pay close attention to Question 18: “NEVER a peep from Trump about his theories on The Vegas Massacre. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Crickets. In the almost 6 months since this terrible event, the President has never said a word…no theory…never ventured even a guess. Isn’t that strange? Out of character?” And then follow up with the links at Question 20 about potential Saudi involvement. No, we have not forgotten because we were never told the truth…
More on the “astro-turf” nature of anti-gun organizations: https://thepoliticalinsider.com/march-for-our-lives-funding/
@jammyjaybird “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…” I see that a lot with the more urban members of the U.S. populace, although it’s not universally so (I’ve bought guns from big city shooters and collectors). It’s one more piece of the huge cultural divide that continues to expand between urban / suburban America and rural America. I’m also interested in building my career (actually winding it down and starting a small business now), engaging in sports such as weight lifting, archery, fishing and yes, shooting and reading books. Having been successfully married (admittedly the second time) for nearly 28 years now, “chasing tail” is of no concern to me. But defending my loved ones, my neighbors and what I have worked for all these years is still very important to me.
Frankly, when it comes to multiple threats, an “M4gery” (an AR-15 build for CQB use) is a highly effective defensive weapon. It’s light, accurate, low recoil and highly ergonomic; a weapon that lends itself to instinctive shooting very well. Hence the full auto counterpart, the M4 carbine, being so popular with soldiers and police. It is an ideal militia weapon and that’s the very reason the left wants rid of it. It creates a credible threat of reprisal in the hands of the populace if the government steps too far over the line of tyranny.
And I also understand your position that you only want to ban so-called “assault weapons”, but we all know that’s a bait & switch proposal. Due to the “holes” the Clinton “assault weapons” ban had in it, other than cosmetics, the same weapons were still on the market, just sans pistol grips, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs (like “Fix bayonets! Charge!” is still a thing). So the next iteration of the ban will encompass everything the gun haters can think of and will essentially ban every semi-auto rifle and carbine with a detachable box magazine. Then they will come after semi-auto handguns. Read their rhetoric and look at the history of “gun control” (which the NRA has compromised on and even supported in the past). It is indeed a slippery slope and the intention of the left is total confiscation of all privately held firearms.
If you doubt that, then consider this from back in 2004: "In the House, HR2038 has been introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. Instead of a “reauthorization” of the earlier ban, McCarthy wants to ban millions more guns and begin a backdoor national registration scheme. All told, HR2038 is a giant step closer to the goal stated by the assault-weapons ban sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS “60 Minutes”: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them – Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in – I would have done it.” Source: https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/2nd-Amendment-Mr-and-Mrs-America-turn-them-2813319.php
We now know why there has been an up-tick in mass shootings recently. It is not the ready availability of guns. It is the willingness of mass media to turn these killers into instant celebrities and historical figures. See this: https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/05/20/there-has-been-an-uptick-in-active-shooter-incidents-experts-know-exactly-what-to-blame
Wait a minute! What do you mean there was another shooting in France with automatic weapons? Aren’t guns already illegal there? http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/breaking-masked-gunman-with-automatic-rifles-and-ak-47s-opened-fire-in-south-france/
Ransom last edited by
@jammyjaybird 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.
Thanks. It came off a little rougher than I intended. Oh for an editor.
The 1787 vs. today topic is important, but for another time.
I’m going to take a long step back from the thread topic to address the theory of debate.
Look, we’re all passionate about this on some level or we wouldn’t be here. Question is, what does success look like? That is something we each have to answer individually to ourselves.
I don’t like the tone these types of threads generally take on. Conflict and aggression is such an easy and pleasurable thing to court, but what does it accomplish of value?
If the goal is to fact-smash the opposition, it will give the poster pleasure, but that’s about it.
I am concerned that the dynamic here is man vs. man rather than a shared struggle through the truth, albeit approaching from very different directions.
So what does success look like? If the goal is to change another man’s mind it is valuable to determine how such changes occur.
First, I do not change other men’s minds. They each change their own minds. It is out of my hands. All I can do is present ideas that inform their decisions and accept that the results will be what they will be.
In oppositional situations the relationship between debaters is win-or-lose, so changing one’s mind constitutes a loss of face and power, even if only unconsciously. People will look for arguments to confirm their position, preventing the sensation of loss and giving the sensation of gain.
I believe just about every position on this topic has enough facts to draw blood. We can all have fun shouting past each other if that’s our idea of fun, but no-one’s mind will be changed. The only real change that will occur is damage to relationships.
Has anyone ever changed his mind on an important topic due to facts in an internet forum? I am certain it has happened. I know it hasn’t happened to me.
People generally change their minds when it is safe to do so – when there is no fear of loss – and when people they take seriously make serious, win-win statements.
By all means defend what you consider worth defending, but if you want other men to change their minds, first build relationships that make it safe to do so and where arguments will be taken seriously. That takes time – years even.
In the end we are all strangers on the internet. Nothing we do will change national policy. I have no interest in winning word wars. I will try to present my position where time and interest permit just so it is represented, but in all likelyhood eating a solid breakfast is more important than having a good bark at each other.
@ransom Thank you for that very thoughtful post…and…we are on the same page. Please note at post 75 above, I shifted gears a bit. On “that other thread” I did quite a bit of teasing and trolling just for fun, in addition to presenting my side of “the facts”. And Jammy is a good sparring partner; I thoroughly enjoy being in the ring with him. But I have shifted gears on this thread because this is a deadly serious topic. I can’t speak for you, but there are in fact, points that Jammy and I do agree on. So let’s explore our common ground:
Secure your weapons. It is up to every individual to see to it that your firearms (or melee weapons such as swords, knives and axes) do not fall into the wrong hands. I see no problem at all in teaching normal children firearms safety and marksmanship as long as the gravity of what they are engaged in is drilled into them. This was how I was raised. So even though I had ready access to firearms, I never committed a “gun crime” as a child. If you have a child with special needs then you will have to be ever vigilant that they cannot access your firearms. Either that or disarm your home.
As @jammyjaybird put it "Until one day we won’t [forget], and there will be born a movement of moral reform". I realize Jammy’s comment focused on the moral imperative to maintain tight control of our guns, but there is a lot more too it than that from a moral perspective. Out of this misguided push for tolerance and political correctness we have attempted to legislate our way out of problems that have traditionally been handled through social and religious pressure. Our morals are the foundation of society. Destroy that foundation and you have what you see around us today. Mass shootings, flash mobs, riots and the like are symptoms of this lack of respect for other people’s rights born out of an immoral and amoral society.
@jammyjaybird also stated “A full-scale weapons seizure is the slippery-slope nightmare of gun-happy right-wingers, but it’ll never happen.” Once again we agree. I would dare say that it’s not so much a “nightmare” as it is a dire warning. Let’s never forget that it was an attempt by the British army to confiscate and destroy arms and powder that precipitated the first battle in the American Revolution. Attempting to disarm those you wish to oppress is certainly nothing new. Human nature does not change. Attempted confiscation has happened here before and unless we jealously guard the right to keep and bear arms it will be gradually eroded; as it already has been (we will cover the myriad laws that already “infringe” this Creator endowed right later).
@jammyjaybird points out that “There are 300 million weapons in this nation and we have a very aggressive gun culture…” This is true (there are probably a lot more than that). But even so, we can’t let our guard down. As John Philpot Curran noted “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” There are very few with the mettle to stand up and fight. Out of those who possess the courage and strength to do it, legal and moral objections will disable many of them. Let’s make no mistake, when we talk about fighting a tyrannical government, we are talking about fighting the police, the military and even our fellow militia members…our friends, neighbors and even family members. I believe the 3% figure for people who are ready and willing to actually fight is probably very accurate. Many (if not most) law abiding gun owners, especially if their names are in a gun owners database (which will be compiled from “universal background checks”) would simply comply with the law and turn in their weapons. Others would bury them or hide them some other way, essentially rendering those weapons useless. With that in mind, it will be far easier to preserve our rights peacefully through ballots now, than to have to recover them “unpleasantly” with bullets later.
A recipe for more school shooters: Make them famous. I will not dispute that ready access to firearms in the United States makes it easier for any rampage shooter to acquire the weapons they need to do the job. But even when We the People were still able to buy true “weapons of war over the counter”, including 20mm anti-tank guns, dynamite, Browning Automatic Rifles and “Tommy Guns” (with no background checks) we did not see this level of violence in our schools. Nowhere close. Sure, we had rival gangs mowing each other down in the mean streets with “Chicago Typewriters” (mainly due to prohibition and the lucrative black market in alcohol) and famous villains like Bonnie & Clyde, Baby Face Nelson & Machine Gun Kelley. But average middle class teenagers didn’t go to school and start massacring their classmates. We did have one school board member massacre school children in 1927, but he used government surplus explosives as his primary weapon: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/
I firmly believe that abandoning basic moral principles is a key contributing factor. Without internal restraints, many humans will go wild and at that point the only thing stopping them from theft, rape, murder and mayhem are external restraints: the threat of other armed humans ready and willing to take them out. With the advent of (and I would say over-prescription of) psychotropic drugs that cause “homicidal ideation” in a percentage of the
victimspatients big pharma profits from, we see a correlation in violence as well. But that’s not the only factor either. There is a synergy at work. The sum total in mass violence is more than the individual contributing parts.
But I contend there is one key factor that stands out above the rest: FAME. There was a time when media would have tempered their reporting on incidents of this type with “good taste”. They would not publish the screeds of fevered brains or extensive profiles of the perpetrators, thereby propelling these miscreants above common celebrities in terms of “glory” and notoriety, even if only temporarily. When there is a high profile school shooting, you can rest assured there will be copy-cats. It has been this way since Columbine. It is time that the media stop publishing their names, their histories and their likenesses. Refer to them as the perpetrator or shooter, blur out their faces and bury their writings in a police file cabinet. Keep giving them what they crave, fame and attention, and expect more of the same. Consider this: http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/22/media-increases-school-shootings-immortalizing-perpetrators/
jammy last edited by
In the end we are all strangers on the internet. Nothing we do will change national policy.
Every ripple, when it joins with other ripples, creates a wave.
@jammyjaybird “Every ripple, when it joins with other ripples, creates a wave.” Absolute truth there. I know how you feel about the NRA and probably about Gun Owners of America as well. But we, the members of both organizations, combine our voices and our money to perfectly illustrate your point. You may believe that it’s all funded and pushed by the gun companies, but I’ve been involved since I was very young. I know a lot of other members and meet more and more of us on a regular basis. When I encounter young gun owners that haven’t joined I politely pressure (and even shame) them to not rely on us “old guys” to keep up this fight for their rights. But to put their money where there mouths are, pick up the phone or write to their representatives. I have had more than a little success recruiting over the years. I have spoken in public, started petitions and met with my elected representatives. I am not alone. And I have never received one thin dime from a gun company for my efforts, I assure you. One man (or woman) can make a difference.
As I pointed out earlier, in agreement with @jammyjaybird, a major ban and confiscation effort won’t happen here in the U.S. The push will be incremental and never ending. From our leftist friends over at Vox: “With guns, we have also seen the slow trudge of changes over time. We have never seen an Australia-style law get through Congress, but we did get the National Firearms Act in 1934, the Gun Control Act in 1968, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993. The result is America now has stricter gun laws nationwide than it did a few decades ago, even if those laws don’t entirely solve the problem and have major loopholes. And, notably, gun homicides have dropped over the past couple of decades (although many factors contributed to that drop).” For the progressive perspective: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/22/17376414/santa-fe-school-shooting-gun-control
Mass shootings are hardly a unique American phenomenon. The U.S. only ranks 11th place worldwide: https://crimeresearch.org/2018/02/with-39-killed-in-tunisia-attack-the-top-three-mass-public-shootings-are-outside-the-united-states/ Overseas, due to strict “gun control” laws, the perpetrators tend to use actual machine guns. Yeah, prohibition works well… (sarc/)
What do you do if you are caught in an active shooter scenario? Here are some tips from a former Green Beret: http://readynutrition.com/resources/an-active-shooter-open-fires-on-a-crowd-what-do-you-do_18052018/