The Second Amendment is collapsing under the weight of modernity.

[Volcompat321]

As a worker in mental healthcare, I believe it's a great idea to give us more funding towards the general mental health state of the citizens.

Anyway, as a gun enthusiast, I do believe the laws will effect about 0 people in the United States.
I have a 16 round clip for most of my handguns, and also have a few 30 round clips for my assault rifle.
**They're trying to limit the clips sold to 10 rounds. That's plenty.

I am trained by professional marksmen, and have obtained quite a bit of muscle memory techniques.

I also believe, when put in a tough situation, I would also put myself, or possibly others in danger. Officers and soldiers also do the same.
I am NOWHERE near trained as even a police officer, but that's not the point.
Anyone, even trained, can make mistakes, even with 25 years of experience.

**I'm not 100% sure on the clip size they're limiting to, maybe 10?
But either way, if you're going to be put in a dangerous situation, realistically, if you cannot hit your target in the 10 rounds you have, you don't need to have a firearm in your possession.

Properly train yourself before you even think of using any firearm as a home-defense system.
And if home defense is your plan, the process in which the government are trying to pursue do not affect you.

[AC9breaker]

Yes, but that makes a very large assumption that is, "if everyone was armed". Realistically, your best/most effective fighters would be from a rather narrow spectrum of the population - largely males from about 17 to 35. Of this spectrum, about half do not own a gun of any kind. Of those that do, most of what they own are handguns and have little to no formal training in their use, let alone regular practice. Ok, now lets sub-divide those numbers again. How many of that group would actually be willing to fight in any given such rebellion? How many would join the Military or a militia aligned with the government? How many would simply take their guns and use them to commit crime (whether for survival or profit) in the absence of regular infrastructure? And finally, remember also that we have a rather bad obesity problem in the US. About 20% of the remainder would be too fat and out of shape to fight effectively... a problem the military doesn't have. Most of these figures wouldn't change in the slightest if we were to broaden gun laws to encompass more deadly armaments.

(Numbers largely pulled from the DoJ & Gallup)

So when you add all of that up, the numbers of effective soldiers on the ground - even in a guerrilla campaign - begin to narrow. Considering the substantial advantage the Military has in technology and resources, I can't see a civilian resistance effort posing much of a threat. The difficulties we've faced fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan don't necessarily reflect the success or failure in this. Generally, our offensive campaigns have been successful with relatively small numbers of highly trained soldiers and surgical strikes taking out much larger forces of insurgents... but with the problem coming in holding and securing territory. They had an important advantage and exploited it... the fact that we have to go home sometime. They can run and wait us out. That isn't possible here at home, because while insurgents may be able to harass our armed forces - they're not going anywhere, and the military will put the full brunt of it's might against resistance forces if they legitimately feel the Government is in danger. Not to imply that those fighting now aren't giving their all, far from it... but the scale of mobilization is a very different ball game when the stakes are the very survival of the US government.

I'm not sure if how I feel about this, maybe I just think too poorly of our own armed forces or too highly of our own citizens. Either way I feel my perspective on this is skewed because I can tell you with 100 % certainty that I feel very bitter at my own organization with an increase in that sentiment every passing day. I do know that if we where ordered to "pacify" our own population on orders from our civilian leaders; not only would myself, but more then enough of our own troops, and officers would counteract these orders on the principle that we vowed to protect this country from all enemies foreign and domestic, in this case being our own government. Bringing my own argument of civilians needing weapons to protect themselves from their government moot since we already have civilians who volunteered to already protect this country from its enemies such as a runaway government.

Those limitations are necessary. A police or military agency which cannot hold superior force over the people is neutered and ineffective. Remember the 1997 North Hollywood shootout? Two guys with assault rifles and full body armor held off police officers for 40 minutes, injuring (nearly killing) 18 officers in the process.

I'm a little ignorant on this subject so the point you made is above me. Where the assault rifles these guys employed within legal limits? Because I would feel like LAPD would have way more firepower then these two schumcks could ever carry being the fact that it's LA, and we both know that there is typically shit that always goes down in LA.



My main gripe with these gun control laws being passed is that they feel too reactionary from these freak accident mass shooting events. Events that are so rare and and unexpected that you can't expect to stop things like these from happening. I feel like more people die from lighting strikes then they do from mass shootings.

[Volcompat321]

I feel like more people die from lighting strikes then they do from mass shootings.

I would assume more likely die in lightning strike, but not more deaths.
Considering a lightning strike kills 1-2 people usually, and mass shootings usually kill multiple people... like 5-10 or more..

I do get what you're saying though, and I agree.

[Sinue_v2]

I do know that if we where ordered to "pacify" our own population on orders from our civilian leaders; not only would myself, but more then enough of our own troops, and officers would counteract these orders on the principle that we vowed to protect this country from all enemies foreign and domestic

I don't doubt that. However, I feel that any situation in which the US Government would find itself in a standoff against it's own populace would be quite a bit messier (politically) than most people would like to admit. Much like the first Civil War (which is essentially the scenario we're talking about here), you'd find loyalties stressed and split among even close friends and brothers. It wouldn't be "The big oppressive Tyranny vs. The People"... it'd be the People vs. the People. Any rebellion would pretty much NEED a splinter of the US military to break off and join them.

Even in the days of the Civil War, the gap between military and civilian armaments was non-existent in comparison to today. Yet the irregulars and guerrilla fighters of the South couldn't stop Sherman's March to the Sea or slow the deterioration of the South's position. Hell, the biggest boon to the South they had during the Civil War was McClellan. Mac was a bit of an obsessive compulsive who was brilliant at building, training, and organizing an Army... he just didn't want to actually send them into a fight and get it all messy. Grant was much less brilliant, but he didn't have to be. He recognized he had a cudgel and had the will to swing it, and that's all the North really needed.

Where the assault rifles these guys employed within legal limits?

Nope. I don't think they were legally obtained, but they were capable of being legally obtained at the time. They had also done some slight modifications to convert them from semi to fully auto. The real game changer in that scenario was the suspects wearing full body armor and using AP rounds which could penetrate the doors on the patrol vehicles and the police's own body armor.

Because I would feel like LAPD would have way more firepower then these two schumcks could ever carry being the fact that it's LA

Now they do, and it's as a response to the NHSO. At the time, the officers on the scene were only armed with semi-automatic pistols and shotguns.

My main gripe with these gun control laws being passed is that they feel too reactionary from these freak accident mass shooting events. Events that are so rare and and unexpected that you can't expect to stop things like these from happening.

On this point, we're in full agreement. Discussions like this should be an ongoing thread in political discourse. Instead, we just ignore them until a tragedy forces our attention to the topic. Rather than having a rational debate on the topic that produces useful laws, we get reactionary measures which only serve to give a little false "peace of mind" to the moment and sparks a counter-reactionary movement which paralyzes the congress and neuters any spark of hope for effective legislature.

[Dangerous55]

This is a silly topic.

Why do people want to give the government more of their freedom? I could see if you actually thought any new legislation would do good, but it won't. It will do the opposite.


Criminals won't follow the new laws. There are too many of these weapons/magazines in this country.

A ban will do nothing. Unless you want to go door to door and collect them. Who will do it though? The politicians? No. The military? Most won't, if some do...I'm not being extreme in saying that would lead to a Second Civil War.

So you can go down that route, and fine, we can work it out that way...or you can look at the real problem(not a stamped piece of metal anyone with rudimentary machine skills can make) such as mental health, prescription pills for depressed 10 year olds, violence everywhere, poor or no parenting....etc...etc...

It is always a good idea to try and get more freedom, not less. I don't want to give this government anything else. I'm not giving up my arms and that isn't some macho, idiotic sense of manliness. To me, it is common sense.

Anyway, Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun. Neither did the 19 hi-jackers. Those 2 combined slaughtered far, far more than these mass shootings.

[Volcompat321]

Anyway, Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun. Neither did the 19 hi-jackers. Those 2 combined slaughtered far, far more than these mass shootings.

While you are correct, this is still an unnecessary comment..
I agree with what you said, where I didn't quote, though.

Timothy McVeigh and his friends led to a nationwide set of laws covering how much AMFO containing products can be sold at once without a commercial license and so on.
There have also been steps to rid the word of airplane terrorists.
(which have recently been set back a little... airports are in the process of, or already banning the full body scanners.. here in FL anyway)...

So no one can say that the government hasn't taken action against ALL forms of terrorism, which can be included domestic school shootings, and so on.



EDIT: Oh, and also, I would agree with you where you say you wouldn't give up your arms... I just bought a new Glock...2 within the last 3 months.. and I love them.
I will be investing in some high capacity mags.. shopping as we speak..
And.... even if there was a ban, who's to say someone couldn't put two mags together.. It would take very little engineering skills to do so.

[Dangerous55]

While you are correct, this is still an unnecessary comment..

How is it unnecessary?

[Akaimizu]

The only real argument I always had to ponder is why some equate what they think of gun regulation to why it isn't in vehicles, where the real truth is that through time, many many vehicle regulations were added, enforced, and increased in enforcement severity for the exact vehicle violations that they bring to the argument. The bad part about bringing it in, is that those increased regulations actually statistically worked. That really weakens the argument. There are even many cars, of certain regulation, unlawful for citizens to have and drive on the road. Thus the whole street-legal thing. All in all, we don't have the lack of regulation freedoms of vehicles people argue we have.

There are arguments to be made, but I think they should've left that one out. (Then again, it comes back to the whole *these people don't speak for all of us* deal)

[Volcompat321]

How is it unnecessary?

Because of the reasons I wrote above..
Those type of terrorists didn't use guns..
For what they did use, there were steps to prevent something like that from happening again.. Therefore, unnecessary, and in my opinion, a diversion from the true topic.

And if you were using that statement as an argument towards your case, it worked against you, anyway.

You're bringing up a subject that has nothing to do with guns. Why?
No point in it.
No one said that they're taking away certain guns, clips, and so on, because Timothy Mcveigh decided to use AMFO to blow up the big building he did.

[Randomness]

While I'm thinking of it...

My argument against no gun restrictions at all.