If not now, when? If not us, then who?

jag1993 wrote: the Heller Case

Them's fightin' words.

I'll see your Scalia and raise you a former Chief Justice Warren Burger (a Republican appointee, BTW, from the way back when we all still believed in intellectual honesty):

The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

Trisskar wrote:

Senan wrote: A shotgun

Will hit it's target.....And through the target....and the wall behind it....and the people inside the room behind the wall....and likely through the other wall on the other side.....among other fantastical damage. Not to mention the recoil....Whooo!!! Talk about a lovely bruised shoulder Such a beautiful Kiss.....

semi-automatic pistol with a ten round magazine

Is highly Inaccurate in aim and stability thanks to recoil and will require an amateur many shots to land one or two. I train often with my Taurus and miss my target just as often (And Im considered an okay shot in our group) .....and that is a stabilized non moving target.

So no.....The Shotgun and semi-automatic pistol is NOT

capable of achieving every single defensive measure needed for an individual in their home.

Responsible or not, you don't ever need a semi-automatic rifle

I do however. From both research and practice/training I have determined the Semi Automatic Rifle to be a much more practical and safer home defense option.


Now I will grant you. The Mag's our Vegas Killer had/used were crazy crazy and un-necessary for your average joe.

So your saying an untrained shooter who cant handle the recoil of a shotgun or the inaccuracy of a handgun is better off with a semi-automatic rifle?!?

And you are exaggerating the effects of a shotgun drastically. If what you say about a shotgun round were true, there would be no duck left when duck hunting. It would literally obliterate any bird you shot with it. Yet, people successfully hunt birds with shotguns all the time. If you are blowing holes through a person and two layers of drywall with one round, you're using the wrong ammunition, and likely the wrong shotgun to defend your home. This goes back to the militarization of civilian weapons. Civilian hunters or home defenders don't need a combat shotgun.

From wikipedia : "The shot pellets from a shotgun spread upon leaving the barrel, and the power of the burning charge is divided among the pellets, which means that the energy of any one ball of shot is fairly low. In a hunting context, this makes shotguns useful primarily for hunting birds and other small game. However, in a military or law enforcement context, the large number of projectiles makes the shotgun useful as a close quarters combat weapon or a defensive weapon."

And... "Compared to handguns, shotguns are heavier, larger, and not as maneuverable in close quarters (which also presents a greater retention problem), but do have these advantages:

They are generally much more powerful.
The average shooter can engage multiple targets faster than with a handgun.
They are generally perceived as more intimidating.
On average, a quality pump-action shotgun is generally less expensive than a quality handgun (self-loading shotguns are generally more expensive than their pump-action counterparts).
When loaded with smaller shot, a shotgun will not penetrate walls as readily as rifle and pistol rounds, making it safer for non-combatants when fired in or around populated structures. This comes at a price, however, as smaller shot may not penetrate deeply enough to cause an immediately incapacitating wound; those who recommend birdshot for minimizing wall penetration also suggest backing it up with a larger buckshot if the first shot fails to stop the threat."

The myths about shotguns and home defense are being propagated by gun manufacturers and the NRA in order to sell more semi-automatic rifles and handguns, but they just aren't true.

They aren't fighting words, they are debating words from credible sources lol.

There's actually an interesting connection between the Militia and the People. The wording of the Amendment includes both these words for a reason. Militias are irregular forces or groups, not regular military. Thus the People had to own firearms in order to create the militias when it was needed. For these we need to look also at the British Bill of Rights, one of the inspirations for the American Bill of Rights:

"from the Declaration of Right, commonly known as the English Bill of Rights. Notice there is no mention of the militia, but this guarantees the right of the English people to have “arms for their defence”. Explicit with the “right to have”, is the right to use in your defense, therefore to carry with you if you felt you may be threatened." source

There is a historical precedent as well showing that the second amendment was designed for the People, as in contrast with the stated militia. Thus, both the Militia AND THE PEOPLE have those same rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=86&v=P4zE0K22zH8

Senan birdshot is not buckshot, Birdshot is not suitable for self-defense. Buckshot will pass through many interior and exterior walls if you miss. Further, they have a good chance of leaving the body depending on shot placement.

Yes, it is easier to engage people with a rifle than a pistol or shotgun. The rifle is lighter, has lighter recoil then the shotgun, and is more accurate than a pistol. And tests have shown with the right ammo the AR15 has less chance of leaving your house then a pistol round.

Finally no you will not engage more targets faster with a heavier weapon with heavier recoil that you have to chamber each time then you can with a lighter, lighter recoil weapon that self-chambers.

jag1993 wrote: The NRA spent approx. 3 million dollars, many other industries and groups spent many times that number (see source several posts back).

WHAT?!? The NRA spent 50 million in campaign contributions in last year's election alone , and a Republican won every election they supported except one. What world are you living in where you think the NRA isn't one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the U.S.?

jag1993 wrote: No, my argument does not shift blame away from the NRA it criticizes the proposed legislation and ideas that come about after these events.

Which is shifting blame from the NRA by saying Democrats can't come up with good legislation. Legislation which is voted down by Republicans supporeted by NRA money. The NRA has been silent after every mass shooting, and then they condemn people calling for tighter restrictions on guns later. It's chicken shit on any gun owner's part to remain silent when someone uses the guns we love so much to murder innocent people, and the NRA hides every time.

jag1993 wrote: You're rights don't out weigh another person's rights, either. People have the right to own guns, that includes Semi-automatic rifles. Again, if you don't recognize any response as valid then there's no point in me listing a response (which I have done numerous times). The people who used those guns to defend themselves may not have had any other option.

Your man made "right" to own a man made weapon certainly is outweighed by my unalienable right to life. Thomas Jefferson purposely did not include property and firearms when he said "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." He did so because these are rights granted by our Creator (capital "C"), not written by man. The right of living things to defend themselves in order to continue living is Natural Law. Even animals have figured this out. They kill to eat, but they also fully expect their prey to defend themselves. Your right to own a weapon designed to deprive me of that life is not natural. In fact, it goes directly in the face of what is natural and what is right.

jag1993 wrote: Taken from the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Scalia on the Heller Case:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home .... it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms." source

Atticus already addressed this. One Supreme Court Justice does not represent all of them. And even if Scalia did, he says "firearms", not "semi-automatic rifles". He also says "traditionally lawful purposes". We're discussing how often people are using these weapons for unlawful purposes. You know, like murdering 59 people. I doubt Scalia would be so quick to defend Stephen Paddock's rights if he were asked today.

jag1993 wrote: This means that the semi-automatic rifle and one's ownership of it is protected by 2nd amendment rights. The point being made is that the firearm itself regardless of designation being assigned to it can be own and used in meaningful ways. That includes self defense and you cannot judge a person on what they choose to defend themselves with or how they use that firearm in a safe manner.

So how come I can't legally own a bazooka then? That argument doesn't fly AT ALL.

jag1993 wrote: I cannot satisfy your answer to why one needs it because no answer I give you will accept. Legally, as expressed in the Supreme Court, a person has a right to own even a semi-automatic firearm and that person does not need to validate it to anyone.

You are correct, because there is no acceptable answer. No civilian needs a semi-automatic rifle. You will need to validate your right to own one to everyone like me screaming for reform and to the family and friends of victims of mass shootings. Like it or not, as an owner of a semi-automatic rifle, you can and will be associated with the people who use them irresponsibly. As long as there are people like those in this picture taking your side of the argument, you and the NRA will be seen as complicit in their actions for supporting their "right" to be alt-right jackasses with guns.

jag1993 wrote: The NRA and countless other organizations in the gun community always condemn these acts but they do not subject themselves to supporting populist opinions because of the emotional responses after these events. They wait for information to come to light of the event in question and then examine potential legislation to protect the rights of individuals as well as ensure meaningful legislation that can protect society.

Really? This simple google search says otherwise... They don't wait for information, they wait to see what kind of excuse they will need to manufacture. Politicians, Country artists at the show, celebrities, law enforcement, news anchors, and others on all sides of this debate have come out with official responses condemning the violence, regardless of where they stand on gun control and the 2nd Amendment. How hard is that? How difficult is it for the NRA to come out immediately and say we don't accept the use of firearms in this way? But instead we get nothing. Silence and tumbleweeds. If they won't immediately condemn this kind of crime publicly, they don't get to claim they want to prevent this type of action in the future. Meanwhile, they are more than willing to lend vocal and financial support to the legalization of silencers. It's hyporcrisy at it's very worst and a slap in the face to anyone wounded or killed on Sunday. Is that what you mean by "meaningful legislation that can protect society"? I'm calling bullshit. If this shows anything it is that we need protection from the NRA.

jag1993 wrote: "from the Declaration of Right, commonly known as the English Bill of Rights. Notice there is no mention of the militia, but this guarantees the right of the English people to have “arms for their defence”. Explicit with the “right to have”, is the right to use in your defense, therefore to carry with you if you felt you may be threatened." source

There is a historical precedent as well showing that the second amendment was designed for the People, as in contrast with the stated militia. Thus, both the Militia AND THE PEOPLE have those same rights.

Except it is now illegal to own firearms in Great Britain. LOL See? Laws can change to match modern society!

MadHatter wrote: Senan birdshot is not buckshot, Birdshot is not suitable for self-defense. Buckshot will pass through many interior and exterior walls if you miss. Further, they have a good chance of leaving the body depending on shot placement.

Have you been shot by birdshot? Me neither, but I bet it hurts like hell and would make me reconsider stealing an X-BOX. Especially if it hit me in the face. Is your goal to defend your home, or is it to kill people? Serious question.

And the argument was made earlier in this thread that just saying you have a semi-automatic rifle is enough to send burglars running in fear or hiding in a bathroom. I'm pretty sure racking a shotgun has the same effect. Hearing that sound in the dark scares the crap out of me, I know that much.

MadHatter wrote: Yes, it is easier to engage people with a rifle than a pistol or shotgun. The rifle is lighter, has lighter recoil then the shotgun, and is more accurate than a pistol. And tests have shown with the right ammo the AR15 has less chance of leaving your house then a pistol round.

My 5'6 and 120 lb wife can point our shotgun down the hallway and hit anyone standing in it. She's shown at the range that she can fire a round, reload the chamber, and fire again within seconds and still hit a paper target 20 ft away with both shots. That should be enough to incapacitate a person, even with bird shot.

We're talking about protecting life and property until law enforcement can arrive, not killing people just because it might be legally excusable. We're supposed to be Jedi who find life sacred, not trying to find the best way to kill people.

MadHatter wrote: Finally no you will not engage more targets faster with a heavier weapon with heavier recoil that you have to chamber each time then you can with a lighter, lighter recoil weapon that self-chambers.

I agree with you here. A shotgun isn't faster. It might just be easier to hit a target because of the spread. Regardless of the weapon, hopefully anyone else runs away after you fire the first round. Otherwise you're in for a fight and a handgun or semi-auto rifle would likely be better in almost every case.

Senan the fact is that if you need to shoot someone its because if they do not die you might. It is literally them or you. That means you need to drop them hard and fast with no room for them to fight back if possible. Sure birdshot might work in most cases. So would a .22 cal pistol. HOWEVER, there are enough cases of multiple determined attackers fighting back even after being shot or shot at that you do not want to play that game with your life or the lives of those under your care. I might not want the person to die but I am also not going with anything less effective at putting a man down if I have a better option. Birdshot will not drop you rapidly due to blood loss so we are relying on a psychological stop due to pain. That means if the person is determined, on drugs, or otherwise has an atypical pain response you are basically just going to tick them off and likely pay for it. Further, you are exaggerating the spread of the weapon the average shotgun pattern is about 1 inch for every 3 feet of travel that means in a 10-foot hallway you have a three-inch pattern or less then half the size of my chest and I am a small dude. Under stress it's an easy miss.

I do hold all life to be scared and when you disrespect that by devaluing the lives of me and my household by presenting a lethal threat then you put your life one peg down on the sacred scale in my eyes. My order of concern in those situations are my family, myself, my neighbors that are at risk of over penetration and THEN the attacker. And with that in mind I do not operate on hopefully I keep my family safe because that five rounds of birdshot does it. I want the best tool with the most rounds that I can reasonably carry with me or have ready in my house. Because Mr. Murphey loves those that rely on hopefully and I have no desire to give him a chance to show up.

I never said I cant handle a Shot Gun. It's fun to fire at the range....despite the bruise. And yes...many others of lesser training can do so as well.

That is not the point.

The point is....I have two daughters in the next room. I would like to NOT shoot them in the act of defending them. Period. A shotgun will most assuredly do exactly that even if my shot was entirely accurate.

No....I was not exaggerating. I would never do such a thing when discussing weapons that kill.

I get what you're saying, Tris. I don't have kids and I also live in a place where the threat of break-in is very minimal. Most conversations I have about defending my home are hypothetical. I certainly hope I never have to fire a weapon in my house, but as of now it will be the shotgun I have. It is what I am most confident with. I also have it loaded with bird shot which is probably not ideal, but I hope it wont leave a massive hole in a wall or endanger the neighbors. I guess its a trade off I make that doesn't work for others, and that is fair.

In my zeal to prevent mass shootings and encourage tighter restrictions on semi-automatic weapons, I do sometimes judge people unfairly or lump everyone into one group which isn't right. From everything I know about you, I'm confident that you are making responsible decisions about the protection of yourself and your family. I also believe you have the skill and training to back up what you say, and you use your guns responsibly.

Just don't ever go wacko and prove me wrong about you, because in a firefight, you'd kick my butt and then I wouldn't be around anymore to be this liberal thorn in your side.