The Wussification of America

[Balta1701]

So because I have yet to need 10 shots, I don't need 10 shots. That seems to be what you are saying there. Guess you can also predict the future.

Frankly, yes. The worst situation you can imagine, multiple people coming at you, by your own admission, you might have gotten 2 or 3 of them before they started shooting back. So by the time you're getting off that 10th shot, the 4-5 of them still standing have each opened fire in response, repeatedly.

 

The only situation where those last 7 shots, or 20 shots, whatever...would be useful, is if they're not shooting back. In other words, a massacre.

[StrangeSox]

Read my above answer to Balta. it fits your gun-world view.

not really

[StrangeSox]

You're full of juvenile arguments. I get a kick out of that.

 

This is about patriotism. I'm not here for the government or for the president. I signed up to defend America because I felt it was my absolute duty.

 

If you think that's statist, then whatever. I don't really give a s*** what someone thinks who also thinks its bigoted to not want a gay son.

might want to check that oath you swore when you joined the government's armed forces and agreed to serve under the Commander-In-Chief.

[EvilMonkey]

might want to check that oath you swore when you joined the government's armed forces and agreed to serve under the Commander-In-Chief.

I think he agreed to defend the constitution of the united states from all enemies, foreign or domestic. Not follow the CIC to hell.

[StrangeSox]

the constitution literally establishes the government and "the United States," and you swear to obey the orders of the President.

[The Sir]

See, that's why you need to think beyond your one incredibly-unlikely-never-going-to-happen-full-frontal-gang-assault situation and to what your ability to legally and easily get weapons x, y and z means. It means there's a lot more of them out there, that the likelihood of them "falling into the wrong hands" increases, that the likelihood of an otherwise perfectly normal "law abiding citizen" making bad decisions or having an emotional issue with a gun increases, that the need to defend yourself from other people with guns increases.

 

Again, I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than to need one and not have it. Sure, I'm probably not going to get attacked by ten guys. I know that. I was only referring to the worst case scenario with AD. But home invasions happen all the time. Who are you to tell me what I need or don't need in that case? Don't you think this arrogance is a reason I scoff at you and have no desire at all to negotiate with you?

 

And you've yet to explain to me how me having an assault weapon, several handguns and a shotgun affects you. I keep them secured. I am well trained. I practice weapons safety like its a damn job (partially because it IS). You might think I'm an angry guy, but I have kept my rage in and my gun in its holster even when tempted by some serious madmen on the roads. Despite my anger, I still managed to deploy. I'm intense, yeah, but that doesn't mean I'm going to shoot people for no reason or have "emotional issues".

 

Please, tell me how this makes your life worse. Tell me how innocent people are going to die because of me or my guns. If you can't do that, stop telling me what I get to own and don't get to own. I don't need your advice.

[iamshack]

Again, I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than to need one and not have it. Sure, I'm probably not going to get attacked by ten guys. I know that. I was only referring to the worst case scenario with AD. But home invasions happen all the time. Who are you to tell me what I need or don't need in that case? Don't you think this arrogance is a reason I scoff at you and have no desire at all to negotiate with you?

 

And you've yet to explain to me how me having an assault weapon, several handguns and a shotgun affects you. I keep them secured. I am well trained. I practice weapons safety like its a damn job (partially because it IS). You might think I'm an angry guy, but I have kept my rage in and my gun in its holster even when tempted by some serious madmen on the roads. Despite my anger, I still managed to deploy. I'm intense, yeah, but that doesn't mean I'm going to shoot people for no reason or have "emotional issues".

 

Please, tell me how this makes your life worse. Tell me how innocent people are going to die because of me or my guns. If you can't do that, stop telling me what I get to own and don't get to own. I don't need your advice.

I sure as hell hope so...you think you should be awarded extra points or something for this?

[Soxbadger]

Again, I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than to need one and not have it. Sure, I'm probably not going to get attacked by ten guys. I know that. I was only referring to the worst case scenario with AD. But home invasions happen all the time. Who are you to tell me what I need or don't need in that case? Don't you think this arrogance is a reason I scoff at you and have no desire at all to negotiate with you?

 

And you've yet to explain to me how me having an assault weapon, several handguns and a shotgun affects you. I keep them secured. I am well trained. I practice weapons safety like its a damn job (partially because it IS). You might think I'm an angry guy, but I have kept my rage in and my gun in its holster even when tempted by some serious madmen on the roads. Despite my anger, I still managed to deploy. I'm intense, yeah, but that doesn't mean I'm going to shoot people for no reason or have "emotional issues".

 

Please, tell me how this makes your life worse. Tell me how innocent people are going to die because of me or my guns. If you can't do that, stop telling me what I get to own and don't get to own. I don't need your advice.

 

Because its not about you. The United States cant make laws for individuals.

 

I can make the same argument that my smoking weed, getting high on mushrooms, tripping on lsd, wont hurt you and therefore I should be allowed to do it.

 

The problem is, and I would hope you can also see this, not everyone is me, not everyone is you. Not everyone can handle their drugs and not hurt someone else. Not everyone can handle their guns and not hurt someone else.

 

So as a society we have to make a decision. Do we the people, the ones who arent going to screw s*** up, agree that we will make rules that slightly curtail our freedoms, to try and prevent other people from being injured?

 

You were in the military. You were trained to operate weapons. My concerns are not about you on the street with a weapon. My concern is about the 19 year old, who buys a gun to be cool, never learns how to use it and does something stupid like target practice in his backyard.

 

Peoples concerns about drugs are for the kids who take them and drive a car, or do something stupid.

 

Sometimes we all get screwed because there are irresponsible people. I can live in both societies. Im fine with a govt that has no rules, but when I say that, I truly mean, no rules on guns, no rules on drugs. I can live in a society with rules.

 

Most people cant really live in a no rule society. It just isnt what they imagine.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Soxbadger

[The Sir]

the constitution literally establishes the government and "the United States," and you swear to obey the orders of the President.

 

I never said anything about an oath.

 

I was talking about my personal motivations. I'm not here for Obama and I'm not here for the government. I might follow their orders, but my mission has never had anything to do with their gradually increasing power over the people.

 

I signed up for the flag. Think of that what you will. It is what it is. I signed up to defend my homeland. I signed up because I believe in our Judeo-Christian heritage. I signed up because I think baseball is something worth fighting for. I signed up because I think the Rockies are beautiful.

 

You can agree or disagree with all of those assertions. But don't tell me I signed up because I believe in statism. That is ridiculous. My love for our homeland is why I did this. You can accept that or continue giggling like a school girl. I really don't care.

[farmteam]

Im fine with a govt that has no rules, but when I say that, I truly mean, no rules on guns, no rules on drugs.

 

"I'll get up, he'll get up, we'll all get up...it'll be anarchy!"

[StrangeSox]

Again, I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than to need one and not have it.

[snip]

Tell me how innocent people are going to die because of me or my guns. If you can't do that, stop telling me what I get to own and don't get to own. I don't need your advice.

 

the thought process is that your easy ability to "have a gun and not need it," even if you will never, ever use your guns to harm a person and they never fall into 'the wrong hands' (which you can never know with 100% certainty) is that it means it's a lot easier for anyone to get a gun. That includes people who get them specifically to cause harm or people who are negligent or people who are perfectly normal law-abiding citizens but have a terrible lapse in judgement, an accident or some traumatic event. If we're going to have hundreds of millions of guns legally floating around this country, innocent people are going to die. That's the price we have to pay for liberal gun laws.

 

You can be fine with that trade-off--we all make these choices everyday i.e. we allow millions of cars (heavy machinery) to be operated by basically anyone 16-dead who can pass an incredibly easy test. We allow alcohol, even though we know some will abuse it, some will drive drunk. But that's the thought process behind the desire for gun control, and you need to think beyond a single individual level.

[StrangeSox]

You can agree or disagree with all of those assertions. But don't tell me I signed up because I believe in statism. That is ridiculous. My love for our homeland is why I did this. You can accept that or continue giggling like a school girl. I really don't care.

You are literally the ultimate enforcement arm of the State.

[The Sir]

I sure as hell hope so...you think you should be awarded extra points or something for this?

 

Nope. It was my way of showing that, no matter what my personna on here, I am capable of owning and carrying a firearm, and not hurting anyone else.

[Jenksismyhero]

Just to note again...this entire topic came up because I asked if you'd had any situation where you used 10+ shots.

 

First off, my scenario would be that when I go to the range I'd rather not change clips multiple times. So there's your scenario.

 

Second, this is not OUR burden here, it's yours. Like it or not, guns are a constitutionally protected right, so you need to provide a pretty good reason, narrowly tailored, to curb that right. Your fear of being a victim of cross-fire in a fantasy world where every gun owner is a Rambo wannabe doesn't work.

[farmteam]

You are literally the ultimate enforcement arm of the State.

I'm imagining a big, giant-like body in an Uncle Sam hat, with a steel arm that has "God Loves the Infantry" imprinted on it.

[farmteam]

You are literally the ultimate enforcement arm of the State.

Oops, double post. I'll take this time to say, "Hey look, 4,000 posts."

Edited February 4, 2013 by farmteam

[StrangeSox]

I sure as hell hope so...you think you should be awarded extra points or something for this?

That he gets so angry at other drivers that he's actually thought about using deadly force (or at least threatening) is a pretty good example of why having guns everywhere is not the best idea.

[The Sir]

the thought process is that your easy ability to "have a gun and not need it," even if you will never, ever use your guns to harm a person and they never fall into 'the wrong hands' (which you can never know with 100% certainty) is that it means it's a lot easier for anyone to get a gun. That includes people who get them specifically to cause harm or people who are negligent or people who are perfectly normal law-abiding citizens but have a terrible lapse in judgement, an accident or some traumatic event. If we're going to have hundreds of millions of guns legally floating around this country, innocent people are going to die. That's the price we have to pay for liberal gun laws.

 

You can be fine with that trade-off--we all make these choices everyday i.e. we allow millions of cars (heavy machinery) to be operated by basically anyone 16-dead who can pass an incredibly easy test. We allow alcohol, even though we know some will abuse it, some will drive drunk. But that's the thought process behind the desire for gun control, and you need to think beyond a single individual level.

 

I accept that trade off.

 

I would like to minimize unnecessary gun deaths. I simply don't think you'll get that by telling me or the vast majority of gun owners what they can and cannot own.

[Texsox]

Nobody says don't write laws. Don't write laws that won't fix the damn problem.

 

I'm glad you recognize there is a problem.

 

Then let's look at supply and demand.

 

When there is more or something than there is demand then prices are low. When there is fewer of them and still there is demand then prices go up. When prices increase then fewer and fewer people (criminals included) can obtain them. Same reason not much street crime happens with high end Glocks, too expensive for petty criminals.

 

 

[Balta1701]

First off, my scenario would be that when I go to the range I'd rather not change clips multiple times. So there's your scenario.

 

Second, this is not OUR burden here, it's yours. Like it or not, guns are a constitutionally protected right, so you need to provide a pretty good reason, narrowly tailored, to curb that right. Your fear of being a victim of cross-fire in a fantasy world where every gun owner is a Rambo wannabe doesn't work.

Great. So if I can cite specific examples of people who'd be alive today if those had been banned, and no one can cite an actual situation other than "it's fun!" for why they should be legal, they should be banned?

 

The arizona shooting spree is a great one. The shooter was stopped when he stopped to reload. That gave the people nearby their chance to go at him. The 9 year old girl was one of the last ones hit before he had to reload.

[Soxbadger]

"I'll get up, he'll get up, we'll all get up...it'll be anarchy!"

 

Back in the day I was kind of a John Bender.

 

 

Second, this is not OUR burden here, it's yours. Like it or not, guns are a constitutionally protected right, so you need to provide a pretty good reason, narrowly tailored, to curb that right. Your fear of being a victim of cross-fire in a fantasy world where every gun owner is a Rambo wannabe doesn't work.

 

I disagree with the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And I believe that one day my interpretation will be correct.

 

We arent arguing in front of the Supreme Court, this is just merely opinion.

[Balta1701]

I'm imagining a big, giant-like body in an Uncle Sam hat, with a steel arm that has "God Loves the Infantry" imprinted on it.

[StrangeSox]

[Jenksismyhero]

Great. So if I can cite specific examples of people who'd be alive today if those had been banned, and no one can cite an actual situation other than "it's fun!" for why they should be legal, they should be banned?

 

The arizona shooting spree is a great one. The shooter was stopped when he stopped to reload. That gave the people nearby their chance to go at him. The 9 year old girl was one of the last ones hit before he had to reload.

 

Creating legislation that would negatively impact tens of millions of people for the sake of literally a single digit number of people is pretty much the definition of failing the strict scrutiny test.

[Balta1701]

Creating legislation that would negatively impact tens of millions of people for the sake of literally a single digit number of people is pretty much the definition of failing the strict scrutiny test.

Your sole example of a negative impact upon you was that it's more fun at the shooting range to have a large magazine.

 

You're willing to trade the life of a single 9 year old girl for that?