Types of weapons limit (automatic weapons, suppressors, etc..). People limit (felons, concealed carry, etc..) Purchase limits (waiting period, background checks, etc..)
Biden Plan to End Online Ammo Sales
- Thread starter 3855WIN
- Start date
Types of weapons limit (automatic weapons, suppressors, etc..). People limit (felons, concealed carry, etc..) Purchase limits (waiting period, background checks, etc..)
Thanks for your typical useless contribution. Don't you have some environmental and public land degradation to defend?
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Do you personally agree in some limits, in each of those categories?
No fully auto, no felons, background check required or do you think it should be fully unrestricted base on your understanding of the constitution?
Genuinely curious, there is no gotcha coming.
I truly don't think any one of those limitations of 2A make us any safer or better off as a society. Criminals and govt have fully auto. Criminals and felons don't go through background checks if they want a gun. Seems to me it only limits the power of law abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals and an overreaching government (theoretically). While those limits may make some sleep easier, in reality they don't do much good for their "intended" purpose.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Yup we can agree that it covers either individuals OR state militias. But of course, that doesn't help us resolve the online ammo question, as the MN National Guard doesn't buy its ammo online to start with.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Both sides are playing absolutist politics with this. But in a better place I would be happy to agree to universal background checks in turn for 50 state reciprocity for open/conceal carry. I would put harsher penalties on domestic violence involving a firearm in return for moving suppressors off the NFA list. There are all kinds of places to compromise if folks would try, but sadly we appear past that.
Justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
Same argument could be made as to the pacifying effect of only being able to own small arms vs. a potentially "overreaching government" who has the ability to make an entire city disappear overnight. Not sure that small arms do much good for their "intended purpose" these days.
You keep bringing up small arms being ineffective. You have overlooked the multiple counter arguments to that...yet keep bringing it up. To be clear I'm for less limitations of 2A...not more. But I'd much rather fight any enemy with what I have now as opposed to less than what I have.
Mako
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2020
- Messages
- 216
Randy, I totally empathize. I'm a first generation Greek myself. My parents emigrated from Greece in the late '60's. After WWII Greece had a civil war. There were those that were Royalists (Greece had a monarchy at that time) and Communists, funded by both the Russians and Tito. My uncle, my father's brother whom I never met and who was 15 or 16 at the time, was taken from his family one day by Communist guerillas that entered their village. He along with several other young boys taken against their will were basically told that they would fight for the Communist cause or they and their families would be killed. My father, who fortunately was too young, or at least deemed too young to be considered soldier material, never saw his brother again.
Around the time that my father finally was able to leave Greece, there was another political struggle. This time between the Royalists, and and a group of Army Colonels. Their junta succeeded and they toppled the monarchy. Getting rid of the monarchy wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but being replaced with a dictatorship was most certainly not any better. My father got fed up living in a country that was constantly teetering back and forth between becoming communist, or becoming a dictatorship (which I guess Communism is pretty much the same thing. For all intents and purposes it's an oligarchy i.e. dictatorship by several individuals as opposed to just one).
I wish people in this country that support gun control measures like this would pick up a history book or two and learn that the first steps taken by any government when subjugating it's people is taking away their ability to resist, and in the case of some of our leaders, they are doing it by 1,000 cuts so that it's not so obvious. The day you lose the right to own a firearm (or as in the case of this thread lose the ability to buy ammo for your firarms), you are no longer a citizen, but a subject instead.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
The US govt, no matter whatever evil form it may eventual come to is not going to nuke one of its own cities, so the pistols vs nukes argument is completely unhelpful. And as already referenced above, there are many examples of a committed population with small arms causing the retreat of super powers (see Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Afghanistan again, etc etc).
To me the problem is that the "wolverine" moment is a low probability fantasy, and that there is little or no chance "flying lead" will be the overwhelming reaction to regulated ammo sales, etc.
When have the gun control folks given up anything to the 2A folks? One side "compromises" and gives up power and the other side keeps taking.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
I support the constitutional right of violent felons not currently incarcerated to have firearms. I also support the right of my neighbor Jihadi John to have a small nuclear bomb.
What part of the crystal clear “shall not be infringed upon” do some people not understand?
Is support for second amendment rights selective or perhaps there’s room for a bit more nuance to some of these discussions?
I find it fascinating that some of the strongest proponents of “ cold dead hands” rhetoric are so comfortable with “common sense” infringement and restrictions of right to bear arms when it’s something they deem reasonable.
What part of the crystal clear “shall not be infringed upon” do some people not understand?
Is support for second amendment rights selective or perhaps there’s room for a bit more nuance to some of these discussions?
I find it fascinating that some of the strongest proponents of “ cold dead hands” rhetoric are so comfortable with “common sense” infringement and restrictions of right to bear arms when it’s something they deem reasonable.
Justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
Maybe I don't find the counter arguments convincing when in reality, the intent of the 2A is hard to argue based on the current imbalance of power vs. when it was first written.
Justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
I'm not sure you'll have much luck convincing some of the 2A extremists that there is no way a tyrannical gov't wouldn't consider using nukes. Okay, dial it back from that and just look at aircraft and drones. How are you going to fight drones with small arms? If a tyrannical gov't shuts down the communications systems and starts taking out resistance with drones, what good are small arms going to do anyone?
I'm playing devil's advocate here and I can't disagree with those who say "what we have now are better than nothing." But if we want to interpret the 2A as it was written, for the purpose of defending against "tyrannical governments" then we passed that point sometime around WWI. That's what I'm saying.
If someone wants to argue they need weapons to defend themselves against other people, okay fine. But the "tyrannical government" thing is long since gone. That ship has sailed.
The only reason small arms worked to repel super powers in various parts of the world was politics. Not because those superpowers lacked the capability to wipe the resistance off the earth.
Well just say you agree with Ginsberg that the 2A is obsolete. Quit making the same argument that doesn't hold water. VG explains it pretty well a few posts above.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
The assault rifle ban expired, many states have added open/conceal carry, most states now allow range & hunting use of NFA suppressors - all kinds of little improvements over my years as a shooter. I get it, "the other side did not compromise, we beat them". Fine but that is true of the other way too, lots of gun advocates still fight backgrounds checks, etc, so in fact compromise by the extremes of either side doesn't happen - so don't flatter the staunchest 2A folks for all their "compromises". The "out of my cold dead hands" crowd has not compromised a thing in my 50 years on this planet. But despite the two extremes, society has reached many compromises including those above and these too . . . for example background checks are not retained in a permanent database, the NFA stamp tax hasn't been raised (and now would be about $3,500 adjusted for inflation) since its inception, etc etc.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Politics happen even more with civil wars. Military parity has never been a requirement for a successful revolution, including the violent kind.
But we agree the "armed against our tyrannical government" argument grows old as most folks care more about big screen TVs and solid internet than they do about armed insurrection.
Justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
Nah, I'm not sure that's true. I do believe that rules need to evolve with the times and in this case, the technology. However, we have brains. We should be smart enough to figure out how to do that and not be bound by the specific circumstances people found themselves in 250 years ago.
These days, I worry more about my life savings being stolen electronically than I do about defending myself from a tyrannical government.
While I agree there is much bloviation in regards to fighting back against tyrannical governments. Just having an armed populous generally keeps government from becoming too tyrannical. If Randy's grandfather or Mako's families would have been armed, it is unlikely that they would have went through the atrocities they endured. They likely would not be Americans today. We are one of the last bastions of freedom in the world. The 2A is a big part of that....although many will minimize its impact. Folks from other parts of the world seem to be more appreciative of it than Americans. I guess you don't know what you have 'til it's gone.
Similar threads
- Locked
