High capacity magazines

[IndyDave1776]

No need to make it personal.

Not all 'truths' are self-evident to everyone alike. If you can't reasonably explain to someone like Avec why you are right and he is wrong, you will eventually end up the minority with no guns.

Avec is raising questions that deserve legitimate answers. You can give them to him without questioning his intelligence or motivations.

If he won't ask them, some liberal legislator will-- and you think the attitude being copped is going to endear yourself to someone in power? To fellow Americans that might be coming from a different point of reference?

I think we'd just as soon have persuasive answers available to those who are coming from a different frame of reference. Yes, all the discussion around natural rights and such is legit-- but one can have all the evidence and testimony on his side and still lose, because it's the JURY (read: people), not the evidence that decides the verdict.

JMO

Please, by all means tell us how you propose to do this with someone who has established a de facto precondition that we must persuade him with an emotion-based argument.

I will stand by this principle: It is incumbent on the ignorant to learn, not on the rest of us to accommodate them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Nope, I stated my point repeatedly and consistently. You willfully closed your ears because I sought to make people think outside their comfort zone. Without rereading your specific posts, I don't recall you making any logical points. Those you attempted I rebutted. Your argument was weak, and I took it apart quickly. Just as quickly as a gun control advocate would. If you want to keep your high capacity magazines (topic of this thread) or weapons in general, you need to sharpen your wits and sharpen your arguments. Right now both are dull for you.

No. That doesn't work. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own 'facts'. You are right that you used the same approach as an anti-gun advocate: ignore facts and repeat yourself a little bit louder making up 'facts' as you go along. Your arguments rested on an entirely revisionist understanding of the Constitution and the notion that rank judicial failure at the hands of people who should have been hanged for treason makes less than a century of willful malfeasance the acceptable standard. Our founders had plenty to say about the nature or people for whom our government was suitable and what they had to say has been proven true. You are resting your arguments on the authority of the interpretation of people who make a standard operating procedure out of circumventing rather than following the Constitution. There is no winning an argument with someone who refuses to accept the truth. That said, I don't see anything productive coming out of this thread.

 

[jamil]

At a practical level you are right. I would go a step further and say that you cannot beat a leftist on his own turf. There is simply no way to make the Second Amendment warm and fuzzy to those people. They are living under a false sense of reality in which the police are always there for them on time, and crime would be disinvented if we could get rid of those scary guns. They refuse to accept that taking responsibility for yourself will keep you safe, and most important, they are unwilling to accept the Constitution as anything more than a collection of outdated suggestions.

The foundational problem with living in a democracy is that you have no rights--only privileges which amount to what 51% of the people say you have at any given time. As soon as we concede or decisively lost here, any pretense of living in a free society is absolutely gone. I can understand your point about meeting them where they live, but I see no point in doing so. As soon as we enter the fray using their preconditions, we have already lost--it is just a matter of going through the motions. Then again, I am pretty well convinced that we have already passed that point, and it is just a matter of going through the motions.

I'm opinionated. I generally think I'm right. but I'm willing to listen to the other side. If I always dwell in my own world, how do I know I'm right, and how do I know my arguments are sound?

I frequently comment and argue with progressives on Huffington Post. Talk about leftists on their own turf. They're often quite rude, more so than we've been with Avec. I also do it because they all believe conservatives and gun owners are knuckle-dragging idiots and I'd like to try to challenge that perception.

Usually responders to my comments there are ignorant trendy liberals who just parrot what their favorite actor says. Often though they are intelligent, but not intellectually honest enough to dare think beyond their ideology. You can never reach those and I don't try. But sometimes, I find an intellectually honest progressive who will listen to an argument and at least admit they haven't considered everything.

 

[Avec]

Please, by all means tell us how you propose to do this with someone who has established a de facto precondition that we must persuade him with an emotion-based argument.

Since I clearly stated I have found not one, but two answers, it was not impossible. And I said a non-emotion based argument. You should prepare yourself by reading my conclusion. There are many, and many in position of deciding, that will not be swayed by the simple "2nd amendment chant" Like it or not, they will be looking for something else. You can curse and swear and call them trolls and idiots, but they will be the ones making the decision to vote up or down. How is that name calling going to work on them? Something tells me that they will not stay to listen and rebut as I have. You will need to bring your A game, and quite frankly most of you did not. If Sen Feinstein's bill gets to the floor of the Senate, is your chant of "all you need to know is the 2nd amendment" going to sway her? You and I both know the answer to that. You can disagree all you want with her, but she and her fellow legislators have the power and they will not be listening to your chant - no one listens to chants, just like no one listens to cheerleaders. If your only argument is "2nd amendment", you are just a cheerleader with bright pom-poms and letters on turn cards. If you want to get in the game, you need to have something that will convince those that don't want to be convinced.

Sure, it is easy to preach to the choir. It appears that is very common here. To be an evangelist, you need to go where they don't believe, and give them information that they can both understand and will change their mind.

 

[Wild Deuce]

Keep going. You're almost there ... seven more to go.

 

[IndyDave1776]

A republic by its nature necessarily rests on the foundation of rule of law which is the purpose for the Constitution. It is impossible to maintain the republic while treating that foundation as if it were malleable. At that point, the nation breaks down to a functioning democracy, which is organized mob rule in which there are no true rights for anyone. It is not my fault that the people supporting such nonsense as gun control are too goddamned stupid to understand that or to understand the consequences of their choices. Arguing with idiots is predestined to failure, and if that is where we are going, I suppose we are going to have to deal with it, but it is going to be a long winter.

 

[Avec]

Keep going. You're almost there ... seven more to go.

Someone is 'Rep'ing me. So I am at least offering entertainment.

I sold a computer server rack tonight, so maybe you are right, I should check to see if any carbines are available!

A republic by its nature necessarily rests on the foundation of rule of law which is the purpose for the Constitution. It is impossible to maintain the republic while treating that foundation as if it were malleable. At that point, the nation breaks down to a functioning democracy, which is organized mob rule in which there are no true rights for anyone. It is not my fault that the people supporting such nonsense as gun control are too goddamned stupid to understand that or to understand the consequences of their choices. Arguing with idiots is predestined to failure, and if that is where we are going, I suppose we are going to have to deal with it, but it is going to be a long winter.

Somehow, I don't think this is very persuasive. Maybe it is just your delivery, but I would work on it a bit if I were you.

By the way, I have in no way taken any offense to things said here. I was fully aware this was not going to go well for me - and it didn't, but I have no hard feelings and I hope there are none on the other side. I do intend to ask more questions, some easy like best carbine cartridge, and some difficult. I will bring my A game, I hope you will too.

 

[HoughMade]

If 30 is too much, what is the right number? 29? 28? What's the number?

...and more importantly, why? Those who would limit liberty must justify why. It is not for those who defend liberty to explain why liberty has value.

...Oh, and St. Thomas Aquinas would be amused to hear that the concepts of Natural Law are based upon a premise that men are inherently moral.

 

[Sylvain]

Since I clearly stated I have found not one, but two answers, it was not impossible. And I said a non-emotion based argument. You should prepare yourself by reading my conclusion. There are many, and many in position of deciding, that will not be swayed by the simple "2nd amendment chant" Like it or not, they will be looking for something else. You can curse and swear and call them trolls and idiots, but they will be the ones making the decision to vote up or down. How is that name calling going to work on them? Something tells me that they will not stay to listen and rebut as I have. You will need to bring your A game, and quite frankly most of you did not. If Sen Feinstein's bill gets to the floor of the Senate, is your chant of "all you need to know is the 2nd amendment" going to sway her? You and I both know the answer to that. You can disagree all you want with her, but she and her fellow legislators have the power and they will not be listening to your chant - no one listens to chants, just like no one listens to cheerleaders. If your only argument is "2nd amendment", you are just a cheerleader with bright pom-poms and letters on turn cards. If you want to get in the game, you need to have something that will convince those that don't want to be convinced.

Sure, it is easy to preach to the choir. It appears that is very common here. To be an evangelist, you need to go where they don't believe, and give them information that they can both understand and will change their mind.

So the US constitution is just a joke for you?

 

[Sylvain]

If 30 is too much, what is the right number? 29? 28? What's the number?

...and more importantly, why?

The OP thinks the 2A is here to protect the rights of the hunters, it's probably why he thinks 30 is too much because he has been told he's not allowed to hunt with it.

He ignores the fact that those guns are for fighting the government.That's why you NEED firepower.

 

[INMIline]

I was going to post in this thread. But it's not worth the attention that a certain guy wants. I won't reopen this thread.

 

[Hohn]

You are incorrect. Even though the BOR, Amendment 1 specifically states that there is freedom of speech AND freedom of the press, it is illegal for a newspaper to print an article they know is false and malicious. The BOR is not absolute.



That is actually the standard definition of what is illegal. You can say "subject to any harm" but the police can arrest you for a number of things, and "freedom of speech" will not be a legal justification.


See above reference to "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" Same applies. They are not absolutes.

I think there is some confusion regarding the limits of the "rights" int eh BOR. Let's the the example of yelling "fire' in a crowded theater, perhaps the most tired and cliche of all examples.

It is one thing to say you don't have a right to do something. It is quite another to say you may do something, but are protected from certain consequences only under certain conditions.

You actually DO have the right to yell "FIRE' in a theater. You have the right to make crank calls to the police. But you do not have immunity from the consequences of such actions-- many of which are unlawful and present the risk of charges being filed against you.

This is an important point, because it says that only what you have *already done* is unlawful-- not what you MIGHT DO. (Cue scene from Minority Report).


What makes our BOR special is that it is a charter of negative liberties-- it doesn't say what your rights are. It says what the government's rights are NOT. 'Congress shall make no law" is an interesting choice of verbage, is it not? "Shall not be infringed" is an interesting way of characterizing the limit to which the government may interfere with a person's ownership of firearms.

Generally, the government may curttail your liberty only when there is a "compelling government interest' in doing so-- not just because something is preferred. Rather it must be essential or vital to public policy and further some other legitimate government interest.

This is one of three elements of 'strict scrutiny"-- the other being that the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest, and it must be the least restrictive means of doing so.

From Wiki:

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the "liberty" or "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin.

This is why I previously posted that the question of "why do I need a hi cap mag" is irrelevant. The assumption is of innocence until proven guilty-- and under our system the parallel assumption is that something is lawful until it isn't.

When properly framed as the question of "what legitimate government interest is advanced by limiting ammunition capacity?" one can see how weak the pro-control position really is from a perspective of legal theory.

We already knew it was incredibly weak in the real world, but it's also weak in the theoretical one.

JH

 

[Avec]

So the US constitution is just a joke for you?

Is that your take away? Sorry to hear that. I thought I was pretty clear, but maybe you just don't want to understand. That's cool Pigeon hole me because I don't think exactly like you. I bet you hate when other do that to you. Hmmmm, what does that make you?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

have been looking lately at pistols, and have been drawn to pistol cartridge rifles. I have watched dozens of videos of all different carbines, etc. All of this has brought up a question.

What is the real argument why high capacity magazines should not be more heavily regulated?

1. Restrictions on magazines holding over 10 rounds are illegal.

The Supreme Court test is "in common use". There are hundreds of millions of magazines over 10 rounds in the USA and more across the globe.

Your police department carries magazines over 10 rounds thus demonstrating the need in self-defense for such accessories.

2. Such a restriction is unenforceable as 1994 to 2004 demonstrated.

We have done this stupidity before. It was a complete waste of time and money.

People would simply buy grandfathered magazines and import magazines made before the ban date as they did in 1994 to 2004.

Such a restriction is feckless in light of 3-D technology. Magazines can now to be made by a 12 year old with a computer, the tech will get better and cheaper making regulation impossible and the law a farce which will ultimately undermine the rule of law as to all gun laws (not a bad thing).

There are sure to be those here that will say "No, never" but why? "Because" is not a good answer. Slippery slope is not a good argument. Really, home defense is not a good answer because if you need 30 rounds for home defense, you either are a really bad shot or have done something pretty stupid to cause dozens of people to break into your home at once.

Home defense is a fantastic answer and one that is Constitutionally mandated. 10+ magazines are available for all the most widely used self-defense firearms in the USA, this is in common use and thus Constitutionally protected.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

St. Thomas Aquinas would be amused to hear that the concepts of Natural Law are based upon a premise that men are inherently moral.

You just won the Internet!

 

[Avec]

I was going to post in this thread. But it's not worth the attention that a certain guy wants. I won't reopen this thread.

And yet you did.

 

[Sylvain]

Is that your take away? Sorry to hear that. I thought I was pretty clear, but maybe you just don't want to understand. That's cool Pigeon hole me because I don't think exactly like you. I bet you hate when other do that to you. Hmmmm, what does that make you?

Yes, you're saying that even though a right is protected by the US constitution it's not a good enough reason to keep this right.
If you support an unconstitutional law then you dont support the constitution.

 

[jamil]

Since I clearly stated I have found not one, but two answers, it was not impossible. And I said a non-emotion based argument. You should prepare yourself by reading my conclusion. There are many, and many in position of deciding, that will not be swayed by the simple "2nd amendment chant" Like it or not, they will be looking for something else. You can curse and swear and call them trolls and idiots, but they will be the ones making the decision to vote up or down. How is that name calling going to work on them? Something tells me that they will not stay to listen and rebut as I have. You will need to bring your A game, and quite frankly most of you did not. If Sen Feinstein's bill gets to the floor of the Senate, is your chant of "all you need to know is the 2nd amendment" going to sway her? You and I both know the answer to that. You can disagree all you want with her, but she and her fellow legislators have the power and they will not be listening to your chant - no one listens to chants, just like no one listens to cheerleaders. If your only argument is "2nd amendment", you are just a cheerleader with bright pom-poms and letters on turn cards. If you want to get in the game, you need to have something that will convince those that don't want to be convinced.

Sure, it is easy to preach to the choir. It appears that is very common here. To be an evangelist, you need to go where they don't believe, and give them information that they can both understand and will change their mind.

To be fair, you can't convince Feinstein. She is ideologically fixed. The only ones you can convince are those on the fence. I don't think the battlefield for us is in the congress, but in public opinion among our peers who aren't already ideologues. Congress will vote for whatever they think will get them reelected.

But your point is not lost. Beating the constitutional war drums won't win public opinion.

 

[Hohn]

Please, by all means tell us how you propose to do this with someone who has established a de facto precondition that we must persuade him with an emotion-based argument.

I will stand by this principle: It is incumbent on the ignorant to learn, not on the rest of us to accommodate them.

It is incumbent upon the ignorant to learn. But not all can learn. It is just as incumbent upon us to teach to those who are willing to learn. For the unwilling, it is "pearls before swine."

I have no means of persuading someone against his will-- emotions, reason, logic, manipulation, whatever. I venture to say few people have such means.

Part of being persuasive is being personable. There are only a handful of people that can actually influence a given person-- a family member, a friend, a respected coworker perhaps.

Sometimes, the best you can do is lay out the facts in the most level-headed manner you can. Sometimes that's good enough. Many times, it's not.

JMO

 

[kawtech87]

Doesn't matter if it is enough for you, what matters is it enough for those that are not sure. Your shouting and name calling does not help that cause. It just makes you look like coolaid drinking zealots.

My 2A Koolaid (as it is correctly spelled) tastes pretty damn good. Ya damn fence post.

If you really want to know the way to convince the antis then the answer is multi faceted. I aproach it the way I do someone who is uncomfortable with motorcycles.

The first is education. Give them facts backed up by real stats that show guns are less likely to kill than a drunk driver and the like.

The second is Humanization. Guns dont kill people, People kill people and they will continue to do so with or with out guns. Get them to see that mentally ill people are the ones pulling the trigger, Guns dont go off on thier own normally.

The third is exposure. Get them used to seeing guns in the hands if good guys doing good things.


The fourth is hands on. Take them to the range and let them see and feel the thing they hate for no reason. Let them get to know the real "gun culture" not the one portrayed by the left and glorified by hollywood. Tell them about INGO and encourage them to join and participate in the boards. Most on here (atleast as far as the ones Ive met personally) are some the best people Indiana has to offer. Gun owners or not. Take them to some meet and shoots.

The last is to make them a part of the solution. Get them to change thier mind and maybe just maybe become gun owners themselves.

If it does not work atleast you tried.

That is my revised answer to you OP. Its worked for me, its worked for others on here and seems to be the only permanently effective way.