My anti-gun friend's argument

[Captain Morgan]

Just today a man in Cedar Lake, Indiana was arrested 1000 yards from a school with 47 guns in his house. He made a statement that he was going to kill as many people as possible. AT THE SCHOOL. As many as possible. :-/ Here in Indiana folks. The elementary school he was referring to was Jane Ball Elementary. It's located about 45 miles SE of Chicago.

I've seen a lot of "guns don't kill people, people kill people". I guess from one perspective, that's true. But by that rationale, bombs/meth/cocaine/bazookas don't kill people either. They are all currently illegal (would anyone really argue they should be legal?!!). I guess what I'm driving at is - that argument doesn't really hold water. If you want to say well I hunt, or I use them for home defense, that may be a more valid point. But if guns/weapons don't kill, should we legalize RPGs and bazookas too, since the items themselves don't kill - just the person pointing the weapon? Or would most rational people agree, we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere?

When the Declaration of Independence was written, the technology was a musket. You shot one bullet (or musket ball) and it took you about a minute to reload. There was no Kroger. They hunted for their food. There was no police presence. These people lived in the frontier. Indians, bears, etc... were daily threats. It was clear they needed them.

But I'm just wondering if we went back and asked our founding fathers - with today's technology, would they still put a blanket "right to bare arms" in the Constitution, or if they may put some limitations on what normal citizens are allowed to buy/own/carry? Just curious...

Some of the people closer to me know that I was a semi-professional poker player (online) for a few years. That ability has been taken away from me. SO I know how it feels to have something you enjoy and see no harm in taken away from you. Nobody ever died from online poker. Ironically, the people that took that ability away from me are the the same political affiliation as those that champion guns.

I'm not a hunter, and I don't particularly like guns. I wouldn't however want to take away a person's ability to hunt, or to defend himself or his home - within reason. But do we really need the ability to spray hundreds of bullets to accomplish either? Honestly, if you feel you need a few semi automatic AK47s to defend your home, please reevaluate where you live.

I'm sorry if this post offends you. That's not it's intention. If it does though, please unfriend me, I promise I won't take offense. I have a child that goes to school though. As a people I think we need to come together, whatever political affiliation, whatever religious background, etc... and try to protect our innocent from monsters and their ability to kill in MASS QUANTITIES.

My grandfather fought in WWII and I'm all for our military. I give thanks for what they do! But ordinary citizens aren't the military, and shouldn't be armed like it. Not in today's time and technology.

He and I have been round and round about this. I argue that the 2A is in place to protect us from a tyrannical gov't and he says that's not even a logical argument because it would take too many people in the gov't and military to come in and oppress the people and there is no way the military is going to follow that order. Please provide some good rebuttals to this, specifically with stats, links to videos, etc. if you have them.

 

[Hookeye]

Video?

Waco- the Rules of Engagement.

They used gov troops and equipment against civilians ..........under the ruse of there being a meth lab.

 

[eldirector]

Why was his ability to play semi-pro online poker taken away? Sounds like he has his own issues, and needs to leave the rest of us alone.

 

[rockhopper46038]

"It's a Constitutional right. It's there to protect us against the government stripping more of our Constitutional rights. If that makes you uncomfortable, **** you."

Sorry there aren't any charts or graphs, but they are unnecessary. You either support Constitutional rights, or you don't. If they don't support my right under the Second, I'm uninterested in listening to the blather they produce under the protection of the First.

 

[atvdave]

"When the Declaration of Independence was written, the technology was a musket. You shot one bullet (or musket ball) and it took you about a minute to reload. There was no Kroger. They hunted for their food. There was no police presence. These people lived in the frontier. Indians, bears, etc... were daily threats. It was clear they needed them."

In this quote I would say the 2A gave us the same type of weapons that the British army had (the enemy) as it should be today.

 

[SEIndSAM]

The best argument is that Bans don't work. Was there no shootings during the last AWB from 1994 to 2004? Of course not. Columbine happened and others. Having a 10 rd mag restriction just means the shooter will carry more mags or more guns.

High powered firearms are here to stay. You can't just legislate something away because you don't like it. How's that working with Pot, Cocaine and Heroin?

 

[Double T]

"When the Declaration of Independence was written, the technology was a musket. You shot one bullet (or musket ball) and it took you about a minute to reload. There was no Kroger. They hunted for their food. There was no police presence. These people lived in the frontier. Indians, bears, etc... were daily threats. It was clear they needed them."

In this quote I would say the 2A gave us the same type of weapons that the British army had (the enemy) as it should be today.

Actually, our weapons were superior to theirs. We had shorter rifles which made traversing easier, and also easier to reload. I believe quite a few of the revolutionists also used breach loaders.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Steelman]

There are laws against bombs and drugs, but people still make or acquire them illegally.

I love it when they say, "You mere peasants, with your squirrel rifles, could never defend against a SWAT Team or an Infantry unit." Any police officer or member of the military willing to violate the Constitution and take up arms against the citizenry should be charged with treason and their sentence carried out immediately.

Even if they managed to remove every legally owned gun from every citizen, there have been several incidents ( right here in Indiana) of police cars being broken into and firearms stolen. Anyone intent on murdering someone will not have a problem stealing a rifle.

Laws - we got em. What law do we need to pass to make murder illegal?

 

[Hookeye]

If Thomas Jefferson was alive today he'd have an AR15, hell, probably a M16.
For the people to maintain power they must be comparably equipped to those who might try to oppress them.

If your friend can't trust his neighbor, how can he trust the one that gets a neato uniform and high capacity rifle (or machine gun) as part of his occupation's dress code?

Or how can he trust his neighbor that holds an office of representation?

People are people.

Groups of them are called governments. Joining a supposed select group doesn't remove a member's capacity for evil.

History shows us that those types of groups are actually prone to deliver such.

 

[Iroquois]

If the second amendment only applies to muskets then the first only applies to newspapers, printed one page at a time....the word militia gives you the justification for the semi- auto..as long as it's suitable for military use the second amendment applies. It's the sporting guns that aren't protected.

 

[Hookeye]

I said this before a while back............but I worked with a British fellow several yrs ago, sister company.

Hunting season was in full swing and a couple of us in the lab hunted.

He said he was rather nervous about guns, such discussion. He didn't like them due to an incident close to his home. IIRC the bomb that blew up the Mc Donalds also blew out some of his windows.

He was rather shook up (no pun intended) then (some time before the discussion) and carried that effect with him to that day.

I looked him right in the eye and said "Well, I would think you to be more afraid of bombs than guns".

He just stood there with a deer in the headlights look

 

[Hop]

When it was written, the technology was CANNONS! Tell you nutty friend the most powerful army in the world at that time was defeated by people with muskets and CANNONS. The Brits were taking the powder and ball, knocking the trunnions off the town CANNONS and throwing the muskets in the rivers.

The people would have a tough time defeating today's modern army because the .gov has already prevented citizens from keeping up with weapon technology.

 

[Miketodd]

My response to this is that the musket was the "assualt weapon" of that time period. Someone who was familiar with the weapon on average could fire 3 shots a minute. They were using the latest technology of that day, why would the 2nd A change because of technology? Should we limit cars because they go faster now and kill more people than when my grandfather was driving a Model T?

 

[ChevyMan]

My heart breaks for those families who lost loved ones in last weeks school shooting. With that being said legislation does not and will not protect the innocent it only makes the lawless bolder. The law abiding citizens are the ones being targeted while those with ill will and destruction in their hearts will continue to Kill regardless of what legislation is passed. Protect the 2nd amendment.

 

[IndyDave1776]

He and I have been round and round about this. I argue that the 2A is in place to protect us from a tyrannical gov't and he says that's not even a logical argument because it would take too many people in the gov't and military to come in and oppress the people and there is no way the military is going to follow that order. Please provide some good rebuttals to this, specifically with stats, links to videos, etc. if you have them.

I hate to rain on your parade, but if your friend is honestly this clueless, there is nothing any of us can do for him.

 

[Captain Morgan]

I hate to rain on your parade, but if your friend is honestly this clueless, there is nothing any of us can do for him.

Sadly, this is what I'm worried about. I'm not sure whether to keep debating it or to simply let him become a victim. I know damn well that I'm going to do all I can to avoid being a victim in life.

 

[hacksawfg]

All I know is the next time someone uses the drivers license for a car bit, I'm going to remind them that said license is valid in ANY state. I can drive my car to a school, shopping mall, onto federal property, etc. and nobody can or will raise a fuss with that at all. If they're OK with letting me carry ANYWHERE I want to go and not be harasses by ANY-effing-body, I might not have a problem with that . You don't get to have your cake and it eat it too though.

 

[matthewquigley]

Actually the weapons the Americans used were hunting rifles and were more accurate than the Brittish issued military rifles. How can he understand how we feel? The last time I looked there was no constitutional right to play online poker...

 

[gunowner930]

Send this to your friend if you want. I think that you would be best served to get him to the range.

Just today a man in Cedar Lake, Indiana was arrested 1000 yards from a school with 47 guns in his house. He made a statement that he was going to kill as many people as possible. AT THE SCHOOL. As many as possible. :-/ Here in Indiana folks. The elementary school he was referring to was Jane Ball Elementary. It's located about 45 miles SE of Chicago.

I've seen a lot of "guns don't kill people, people kill people". I guess from one perspective, that's true. But by that rationale, bombs/meth/cocaine/bazookas don't kill people either. They are all currently illegal (would anyone really argue they should be legal?!!). I guess what I'm driving at is - that argument doesn't really hold water. If you want to say well I hunt, or I use them for home defense, that may be a more valid point. But if guns/weapons don't kill, should we legalize RPGs and bazookas too, since the items themselves don't kill - just the person pointing the weapon? Or would most rational people agree, we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere?

I think you'd be surprised to learn what weapons are actually legal provided that they're registered with the ATF. There are an estimated 90 guns per 100 people in the United States. If we do the math that is almost 280 million firearms in a nation of 310 million people. If there is a demand for any product, that demand will be met by somebody willing to provide that given product to the market legal or not (war on drugs). You drawing a line in the sand could be likened to pissing in the wind. Regardless of what ban you pass, the demand for firearms will still exist and there will always be a huge supply of firearms to meet that demand legal or not.

When the Declaration of Independence was written, the technology was a musket. You shot one bullet (or musket ball) and it took you about a minute to reload. There was no Kroger. They hunted for their food. There was no police presence. These people lived in the frontier. Indians, bears, etc... were daily threats. It was clear they needed them.

If you really think men as innovative as the founding fathers had no idea that small arms technology would evolve over the span of 200+ years, then you are fool. The 2nd Amendment was written as a safeguard against a federal government that could become tyrannical. In fact, how does this logic apply to the rest of the Bill of Rights? The weapons evolve but the intent has not. Look at the most despotic dictatorships of the 20th century, such as the USSR, Mao's China, Nazi Germany, etc... All either banned the private ownership of firearms for all their citizens or in the case of Nazi Germany their citizens that would end up in the gas chambers. In fact Mao is quoted as saying that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

Most people own firearms for the same reasons they did back then. protection and hunting. This may come as a shock to you but there are places even here in Indiana that are too remote for law enforcement to quickly respond to a 911 call. Hell even in a suburb, if you are subject to a home invasion, can the police really respond in time to save you even if their response time is only 5 min? Think about that. Out west, there are still bears, mountain lions, and wolves that people have to deal with. Why do you think that rural Americans often own more firearms that city-dwellers or suburbanites?

But I'm just wondering if we went back and asked our founding fathers - with today's technology, would they still put a blanket "right to bare arms" in the Constitution, or if they may put some limitations on what normal citizens are allowed to buy/own/carry? Just curious...

Study some of the quotes that Thomas Jefferson has made. If you question what one of the founders like Jefferson would say, then you really haven't read anything about him.

Some of the people closer to me know that I was a semi-professional poker player (online) for a few years. That ability has been taken away from me. SO I know how it feels to have something you enjoy and see no harm in taken away from you. Nobody ever died from online poker. Ironically, the people that took that ability away from me are the the same political affiliation as those that champion guns.

But gambling leads to addiction, bankruptcy, theft, etc. You can't gamble because a bunch of petty tyrants decided you can't make that choice as an adult with other consenting adults. Now you're the one behaving like a petty tyrant trying to ban guns because you don't like them. A gun is a tool, research defensive gun uses. People have saved their own lives by using guns in the past and will continue to do so in the future. I'll counter your claim that online poker "doesn't kill anyone" because it also has never helped anyone save their lives or the lives of the family when confronted by armed thugs. Guns have done this, and that is indisputable.

I'm not a hunter, and I don't particularly like guns. I wouldn't however want to take away a person's ability to hunt, or to defend himself or his home - within reason. But do we really need the ability to spray hundreds of bullets to accomplish either? Honestly, if you feel you need a few semi automatic AK47s to defend your home, please reevaluate where you live.

I would not insult anybody's mother- within reason but that guy's mother... well she's kinda fat and ugly. That is essentially what you just said. You need to attain a basic understanding of firearms before you go ranting and raving about them. YOU CANNOT SPRAY-FIRE A SEMI-AUTOMATIC. YOU CANNOT SPAY-FIRE A SEMI-AUTOMATIC. YOU CANNOT SPRAY-FIRE A SEMI-AUTOMATIC. You're confusing automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons. This is not entirely your fault though, as the media has intentionally mislead the American public on that little nuance.

Semi-Automatic- one trigger pull, one bullet fired. one spent cartridge casing ejected, and one cartridge automatically chambered.

Automatic weapon- one trigger pull and bullets will be sent downrange as long as the trigger is depressed until the source of ammunition is expended. These are machine guns and sub-machine guns, not semi-automatics. Additionally, automatic weapons are heavily regulated already.

I'm sorry if this post offends you. That's not it's intention. If it does though, please unfriend me, I promise I won't take offense. I have a child that goes to school though. As a people I think we need to come together, whatever political affiliation, whatever religious background, etc... and try to protect our innocent from monsters and their ability to kill in MASS QUANTITIES.

And how do you plan on doing that? I've already told you why a gun ban can't work given the laws of supply and demand. If you think we all should come together to get gun control passed then I will not give people like you an inch. I will not support any gun control measure regardless of any emotional and illogical outcry. I'm responsible for my own security and well-being, and I will not tolerate being told when, how, and if I can defend myself. If you don't want any firearms in your home, then that is your choice, and is also your choice to hide in a closet while praying the police respond in time to save you. But do not attempt to enforce your opinion on me. There are many gun owners who believe exactly as I do in that regard.

My grandfather fought in WWII and I'm all for our military. I give thanks for what they do! But ordinary citizens aren't the military, and shouldn't be armed like it. Not in today's time and technology.