Asshole/Asshelmet With A Gun

[Gunnerman19]

Psiberzerker-The nice part of the training in basic firearm safety is that no range is needed. It’s also something that doesn’t take way from their typical day. A week worth per year of firearms safety training is really no different than sex education or D.A.R.E.
As far as the elective marksmanship team goes, we can get it that and spend a lot of time there. I think the fact that we agree is good enough and goal met.

For the sake of the argument there is no need to go into how best to defend against a “sniper”. That’s not what we are talking about here. Let be honest the only way to defend against sniper fire is to put up concrete walls around the schools or have school underground. You talked about redefining militia, as well as the training so let’s talk about that. You made so good points in regards to indiscriminate fire and IFF. Seems we can dive deeper.

[Gunnerman19]

Psiberzerker-hahaha easy buddy it’s early. You seem to have knowledge about firearms and I’m not saying you have little knowledge but there are people out there. I’d be for betting that some of your friends have little to no knowledge about them. Some of the people I know have little to no knowledge about them.

[psiberzerker]

I’d be for betting that some of your friends have little to no knowledge about them. Some of the people I know have little to no knowledge about them.

Okay, but you make assumptions, and speak for people in absentia.  That doesn't really support your argument.  

I can speak to my friends, and help them better understand firearms.  I have no intention of speaking for them, but you can't, you don't even know them.  

[Jed_]

Two comments on firearms knowledge:

Plenty of people don’t consider it a necessity to have firearms knowledge, just as they don’t feel the need to know how to rebuild a carburetor.  It doesn’t mean they can’t see the impact firearms have.

There’s also a whole bunch of people that have little or no knowledge of firearms yet still own them.  You can’t drive a car without a license and passing a written and skills test, yet you can buy just about any firearm without demonstrating any knowledge of using them safely.

[psiberzerker]

Plenty of people don’t consider it a necessity to have firearms knowledge, just as they don’t feel the need to know how to rebuild a carburetor.  It doesn’t mean they can’t see the impact firearms have.

On a case by case basis.  I honestly don't understand computerized fuel injected overhead cam racing engines, despite having worked in a Factory that produced them.  

I still understand the impact the pollution has on the environment.

The inverse is that we have guys (Mostly) who know far too much about guns, down to nerdy little details.  How many slots are exposed in the back of the bolt when it covers the ejection port?  (About 9.5)  I can tell you why they had to add a way of manually advancing the bolt, with a button on the side, but that has nothing to do with school shootings.  Any more than my dick size does.

Because they're Gun Nerds, they can deny the impact they have on our Children.  The children who aren't shot, nor even present in a school when their classmates are wounded.  Don't even go to a school that was ever directly impacted by a psycho with a fetish for killing machines, and a faulty enough IFF that they can massacre children, and still play the victim.

There are no Experts here.  If there was, we'd have more answers, and fewer fingers pointed everywhere.  Pointed at guns, ponted away from them, this is a gun debate, and not a protect the children brainstorming session, because it's easier to understand machines than people.  Even other Gun Nerds.

This is irrational terrorism.  No though experiment, or friendly debate is going to do a damned thing about it, but go ahead and fight for your right to high capacity magazines, while every child in every school in this country lives in fear.

[Gunnerman19]

Jed- very well typed out. I would agree and I would think that it’s common knowledge that there are people that don’t have knowledge about even one or both firearms and carbs.
The difference is in that second amendment and why it was put there. Do you think it was just randomly written or do you think that there may have been a reason it came right after the first amendment...I mean 1 is before 2?

[Gunnerman19]

Psiberzerker-so you believe that had the shooter in any one of the shootings across the US where an “assault weapon “ was used that if that person had 10 round mags he would’ve kill less people?

[psiberzerker]

The difference is in that second amendment and why it was put there.

Just a minor amendment:  The reasons, there were many.  We needed a militia, because while we had a standing army, we didn't have organized police, fire, and similar systems in place.  So, we required volunteers, and we still have volunteer Firemen to this day.

It wasn't about guns even back then.

Psiberzerker-so you believe that had the shooter in any one of the shootings across the US where an “assault weapon “ was used that if that person had 10 round mags he would’ve kill less people?

Alternate history is as inaccurate as predicting the future, but as a science-fiction writer:

Yes, more reloads means more opportunities for unarmed crowds, even school children to gang up, and stop them, before they can bring it back to battery.  Even if you have a gun, and cover, a reload is an opportunity to break cover, take aim, and get off an Accurate shot.

Barring either of those hypothetical scenarios, a reload is an opportunity to break cover, and run, without getting gunned down.

[Gunnerman19]

Psiberzerker-assumptions are different that informed guesses or decisions. Why do I ask questions. You’re not the only person I’ve ever debated this with. One of the more interesting ones but not even close to the first.

[psiberzerker]

I'm still not "Debating" you.  I'm trying to share points, from a different perspective, that you might not have considered.

Again, someone wins a debate, but if we all learn from this, then we all gain that from it.  Instead of 1 declaring himself the intellectual superior, and victor.

That's common ground.  You don't fight over common ground, we share it.  Why it's called that.

[Gunnerman19]

Well then that goes against you argument to limit them. If that mag change makes a difference on one then it also has the same difference on the other.

[Gunnerman19]

Psiberzerker-yeah we established that in another thread on you didn’t seem to like common ground then. I like that you are starting to take the high road. You are much easier to deal with without the emotions.

[psiberzerker]

If that mag change makes a difference on one then it also has the same difference on the other.

Okay, I thought it over, and I believe this may be a call back to the School Shooting vs Self Defense examples, earlier.

"Same difference" for one.  Okay, one is a lone shooter, ASSAULTING a public place.  So, mag changes is significant, because he's set out, from the outset to maximize casualties.

The other is DEFENDING yourself.  Right?  Correct me if I'm wrong, and this isn't in response to the 10 round magazine debate.

In a Self Defense Scenario, your priority shouldn't be maximizing casualties, or firing rounds as quickly, and indescriminately as possible into a crowd.  It should be defending yourself, and nothing more.  If you can't do that with 10 rounds of let's say .40 caliber (Since it was designed specifically for the 10 round Glock magazine) then you're probably already dead.

You can "What if" all you want, but you're at a disadvantage in a Duel, when one guy knows he's in a fight before the other.  As the number of attackers go up, your chances of getting more rounds drop, exponentially on the Defense.

On offense, say assaulting unarmed schoolchildren, you might have to worry about reloading.  On the defense, 6 rounds was enough for Elmer Keith, and 10 for the FBI, under the expert recommendation of Jeff Cooper., to perform the duties of Law Enforcement, and 8 rounds (In the 1911) was enough for the Army, for decades.

More rounds won't save your life, either You will, or you won't.  It's not a magic talisman, nor security blanket.  It's what You need to save Your life.  If you can't do it with 10, you can't do it with 30.

[Gunnerman19]

Psiberzerker-you version of the 2nd amendment differs from how it was written. I’m pretty sure arms means the same then as it does today but go ahead and explain how the right of the people to keep and bear arms, infringed means something other than what it says. I’ll wait...

[Gunnerman19]

Psiberzerker-I know you’re intelligent enough to understand it. Fun game tho .

[psiberzerker]

I’m pretty sure arms means the same then as it does today but go ahead and explain how the right of the people to keep and bear arms, infringed means something other than what it says.

It doesn't, but you brought up the Context in which it was written, and I already gave a pretty exhaustive reply to the "Right to...   Shal not be infringed" format.  Every time it was used, in the bill of rights.

The Context of the Predicate was explained in the Subject:  The Militia.  If you just cut that out, then it just says "The right to bear arms shal not be infringed apon,"  

However, that's not the whole truth.  Much less nothing but the truth.  If the Militia is no longer necessary, then the Right to Bear Arms needs to be re-examined.

If it is, then the modern definition of the Militia needs to be re-defined.  It's one statement, separated by a comma.  Examine all of it.

[Gunnerman19]

Psiberzerker- you got some reading and understanding to do bud. You can interpret it however you want but with more reading on the issue and the time and definitions I think you will gain a better understanding of why it was written with the commas placed where they were as well as why I am only using the individuals right when speaking of the individuals right. How I use that doesn’t take away from the militia at all.

[psiberzerker]

I chose to see the militia part of it as our founding fathers inadvertently suggesting a solution to the problem that they couldn't have predicted:

The Militia.

We didn't have a Public School system at the time.  So, they made no provision for it's security, specifically.  They made provision for the Security of a Free State.  In this case, the freedom of children to learn without fear of terror attacks.

That's the main problem, as I see it.  Not guns, America's Children.

[Gunnerman19]

There’s already a market for them and disarming Americans of their rights makes them no safer. It never has in the grand scheme of things.

[psiberzerker]

There’s already a market for them and disarming Americans of their rights makes them no safer.

Right, so the alternate solution is to get volunteers, arm, train, and discipline them as a Well Regulated Militia.

That's what I'm saying:  If we had a Well regulated Militia, then they could handle this.