Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Maccabee, Jan 4, 2020.
Unless you're at sea, and a nearby ship hoists the Jolly Roger.
So ultimately the proposal for defense against harm is to simply flee from a given location in hopes of finding someplace that is not plagued with everyday crime and/or violence.
Pray tell, exactly where is this desired location where individuals simply do not have to be concerned with their own well being because there are no threats in need of being addressed? What location in the world is simply absent of crimes that arise from basic human nature?
Basic human nature?- to live in a location where gun violence is out of control?
Americans largely have little concept of life in Oz or NZ where you might experience road rage but never expect to be shot. Therefore no need to carry a firearm nor legally be able to carry a handgun.
Can you imagine the calmness of such a life?
Because I don't think there should be any compromising. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear, and is about an inherent right. There is no room for compromise.
Factually incorrect. Violence is a basic aspect of human nature. That is ultimately why so many individuals demonstrate no qualms with murdering one another for whatever reason serves as a convenient justification and/or excuse. But violence is not limited solely to firearms, and encompasses a great many subjects.
Are the nations of Australia or New Zealand absent of all manner of violent crime committed against members of the public? Do they have no stabbings, no sexual assaults, no arson, no gang violence of any sort, or riots that resort in a neighborhood being burnt to the ground with improvised incendiary devices? Is there no human trafficking? No breaking and entering by those desperate to feed an addiction to illicit narcotic substances? No attacks on the people committed by wild animals? No one being murdered simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? No racially-motivated violence?
Just figured I’d chime in on the image example in your post. While they may be the same weapon I see a couple clear differences I feel you’ve ignored. The second image shows a collapsible stock, which can aid in concealment, and an extended magazine which holds a larger number of rounds than the weapon in the first image (I assume it hold a five round mag that’s not visible).
Not saying either of those are illegal or should be, not within this post anyway, but there are certainly some functional differences there.
First and foremost, it is a myth that collapsible or otherwise adjustable stocks does anything to aid in the concealment of a firearm, especially if the concealment efforts is made while it is being carried by the one intending to use it.
Second, the magazine it not an integral feature of a firearm unless it is permanently affixed to the receiver, such as the underbarrel tube magazine of a shotgun.
Third, both firearms are the exact same model and utilize the exact same functionality, which is completely independent of whatever cosmetic feature may be attached to the firearm to customize its appearance.
Stripped of their cosmetic features and outside attachments, this is ultimately what both firearms amount to.
Thanks for your reply. I’m familiar with breaking down weapons, and I agree that the internal function is the same between the two weapons.
That said, I believe you can customize a weapon enough that it’s functional purpose could come into question.
Lol I forgot about fighting the pirates.
Most people do
Short of illegal modifications that are not being discussed, ultimately how can such hypothetical customization actually be performed?
That makes sense. A thread from a person willing to compromise posts with the intent to draw others into how such compromises can be suggested and you enter clearly stating there should be no compromise. Sheesh.
FYI we all know you guys dont want to compromise....its the flexible reasonable ones that we want to listen to.
Oh dear, here we go again. Easy pickings for you to go for. Yes, (boring) Oz, NZ and every country in the world has violence ok. Admitting the obvious. But it is more important to look at the levels of violence, percentage of likelihood of being mugged, raped, shot at. Hence the "calmness" comment of mine.
If you cannot see the contrast in that (USA vs every other country with the exception of pockets of high crime like Jamaica) then end of discussion.
You'll end up talking yourself into anything
You don't know much about self defense do you?
Assault Weapons are already highly regulated, you really don't know much about firearms do you?
Where live a lot of people are armed, the county just passed a resolution making it a Second Amendment sanctuary and gun related crimes are virtually heard of, can you imaging the calmness of such a life?
There is no compromising when it comes to rights, just because you don't have them, do not expect us to join you in such foolishness.
Pray tell, exactly what is the acceptable number of murders in a given year, that simply do not require any further effort at reducing the numbers because they are accepted as being good enough?
Then you are clearly NOT a pro gun advocate. You are anti-gun pretending to be pro gun; we see them on every liberty or gun-based forum on the Internet; we see them in Congress, in the NRA, in Republicans, in Democrats, in the Armed Services, we see them all around and, as soon as they start talking, we know them.
None of your specific compromises matter in the discussion. If you're willing to compromise then you are not pro gun.
Let's look at the compromises to date:
Compromise of 1934: National Firearms Act or NFA - Bans possession of many kinds of weapons without paying a tax and permission of the Federal Government.
Compromise of 1938: Federal Firearms Act or FFA - required those making, importing, or selling, firearms to have a federal license. Banned the sale to convicted violent felons.
First Compromise of 1968: Safe Streets Act - Banned interstate sales of handguns and sale of handguns to anyone under 21 years of age.
Second Compromise of 1968: Gun Control Act or GCA - Extended interstate ban to long guns. Added the felon restriction to non-violent felons such as felony litterers.
Compromise of 1986: Firearm Owners Protection Act or FOPA - Banned the manufacture of machine guns for civilian use.
Compromise of 1988: Undetectable Firearms Act - Banned guns with less than 3.7 ounces of metal - which is why all your Glocks have steel slides.
Compromise of 1990: Gun-free School Zones - banned the possession of any defensive weapons on school grounds; has had zero affect on the possession of guns by those who are determined to kill people on school grounds.
Compromise of 1993: Brady Bill - requires background checks for all sales by gun dealers.
Compromise of 1997: Lautenberg Amendment - Banned the sale of firearms to those who committed some violent misdemeanors.
In spite of all those other compromises that were made with the promise of peace on earth, you come with another list of compromises and expect us to consider them. And if we agree to and accept all those compromises then what? No one is ever going to come again with the next compromise?
The problem with each and every one of these compromises, and the ones you are proposing as well, is that you come to the table with nothing in hand; nothing to offer, except give up some of our liberty or you'll take more of our liberty. There's no compromise or trade, there's no deal. We have the natural or God-given (you choose your own source of liberty) right to the tools of defense against evil and we have the Constitution guaranteeing that, in all of the United States, and in any dealing with the Federal government, that natural right cannot be infringed.
You come with nothing. I give nothing. I surrender nothing. If I abide with unconstitutional laws because of the guns standing behind them, that does not mean that I surrender my rights. The nature of rights is that neither you nor government can take that right. You can infringe it; you can, by force, interfere with my exercise of it, but you cannot take it. It is not a privilege, granted by a benevolent superior class that they can give or take at their will. It is a right. Don't tread on it.
Isn't compromise where both sides give a little to get a little? So tell me what, exactly, I get out of a compromise with anti-gunners? Since I have the right, absolutely and without infringement by any government in the United States, tell me again what you're giving me?
Umm, no, goodwill against evil doesn’t work that way. You can’t get away from the fact that your cradled 2nd A was made before weapons of instant mass murder was made. Sure you are legal, doesn’t make it right. “Right” is to acknowledge that change is needed, that overall gun control is needed in some form or another, that USA got it wrong. The fact that no Govt has tackled gun control seriously is not a blight on the country leaders, it’s a blight on the gun lobby and a culture deep in disillusionment that makes change political suicide.
So my answer to your question is- it is not a case of compensation, of you doing a favour to society so what do you get in return, it’s a case of accepting the gun culture is way out of control so do the right thing... give up your weapons and join the minority that supports that cause. Yes, I’m dreaming but it’s reality here in Australia thankfully. I haven’t seen a rifle/any gun with my eyes for 35 years since I worked as a ranger.
Multi-shot repeating firearms existed, both in concept and execution, long before the second amendment was ratified, some designed before the founding fathers were even born.
Who needs a corvette? Who are you to determine what one needs or wants?
The first amendment was made before computers and the internet gave every nut a voice worldwide. I suggest you toss yours out.
Separate names with a comma.