IL Sen Durbin: 10 Rounds "Generous"

What's the hunt looking like this year in your area? Share!
User avatar
JPH
 
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:28 am

Re: IL Sen Durbin: 10 Rounds "Generous"

Postby JPH » Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:14 am

That's fair, WW. I am much closer to you than I am Dick Durbin. Better yet, I trust and respect you. Unlike Durbin, you and I both love the Constitution and understand guns. That makes us qualified to speak intelligently on the topic.

The fact is, we have a sickness in this Nation. One of the symptoms of this sickness is the mass shooting phenomenon. I see regulation of the militia by way of reduced mag-cap as a reasonable way to address the symptom. I feel it would present a mild inconvenience to you and I while signifigantly reducing the rate of fire for indiscriminate and suicidal shooters.

User avatar
Woods Walker
 
Posts: 4898
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: IL Sen Durbin: 10 Rounds "Generous"

Postby Woods Walker » Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:19 am

I know you are J'per. I also agree on the "sickness". But I guess we will have to agree to disagree about giving away our rights to people like Sen. Durbin., ESPECIALLY for something that's as superficial and ineffective as shot capacity.
Hunt Hard,

Kill Swiftly,

Waste Nothing,

Offer No Apologies.....

>>>--------------------------------->
NRA Endowment Life Member

User avatar
Sailfish
 
Posts: 1612
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 11:12 am

Re: IL Sen Durbin: 10 Rounds "Generous"

Postby Sailfish » Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:44 am

Remember the scene in Field of Dreams, where James Jones is telling the story about why the people will come to the field?

They'll come to Iowa for reasons they can't even fathom. They'll turn up your driveway not knowing for sure why they're doing it. They'll arrive at your door as innocent as children, longing for the past. Of course, we won't mind if you look around, you'll say. It's only $20 per person. They'll pass over the money without even thinking about it: for it is money they have and peace they lack. And they'll walk out to the bleachers; sit in shirtsleeves on a perfect afternoon. They'll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the baselines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes. And they'll watch the game and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. The memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces. People will come Ray. The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again. Oh... people will come Ray. People will most definitely come.

In my mind this is sort of an analogy for what is happening in the US right now. The liberals have preached and preached about how evil and bad things have been. Now after a generation or two its part of their psyche or subconscious.
They are "told" what to do, they don't mind you see, they'll gladly go along, and "pay", not even know why they are doing it. They feel they are on the road now to this perfect place on the sidelines. Everything will be just grand like when they were children. Never questioning as they go along, accepting the restrictions and limitations gladly as they sit and watch the game. They'll happily munch on their tofu dogs, kick off their Birkenstocks and watch .... the government steamroll them and their rights..............happily.
Sad part is, they will take a nation down with them if we don't stand up and take this thing into extra innings.

Ok its a B- at best, but an A for effort!
"Go as far as you can see; when you get there, you'll be able to see farther."

User avatar
Everyday Hunter
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:12 am

Re: IL Sen Durbin: 10 Rounds "Generous"

Postby Everyday Hunter » Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:01 pm

"...."we should limit it to 10 and even that is a generous limitation" ...

I hear him saying, "I'd like to pass a completely arbitrary law. 10. Or, we might as well make it 7, 5, no -- how about 3? No, let's make it one, and call it the Barney Fife Act."

Steve.
When the Everyday Hunter isn't hunting, he's thinking about hunting, talking about hunting, dreaming about hunting, writing about hunting, or wishing he were hunting.
Image

User avatar
JPH
 
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:28 am

Re: IL Sen Durbin: 10 Rounds "Generous"

Postby JPH » Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:35 pm

That is exactly why we as gun owners should be the ones having this conversation, so that the regulation is not arbitrary. How many rounds does a hunter reasonably need in mag capacity? I tend to think anything over 5 in the mag and 1 in the chamber is unreasonable. How about a defensive shooting situation? This is not my area of expertise but it seems that I've read that the average rounds fired by a defensively shooter is less than 5. If that is in fact true, 10 does appear generous. Why not do studies? Maybe run simunition drills with shooters of various skill levels and see what amount of ammo is actually needed for self defense?

Offensive shooing? Small unit manuver? Building clearing?The Army seems to have done the homework for us there and has come up with 30. Suppressing fire? Again, the Army has tested it and they go with 50-300. These are not shooting situations civilian shooters should be involved in. The people who are using offensive tactics and suppressing fire are using it in malls and schools and on DEA agents.

I know. I know. Competition shooters. Civil emergency. Fighting the government. It's all been said so many times. It just does not sway me any longer.

User avatar
Everyday Hunter
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:12 am

Re: IL Sen Durbin: 10 Rounds "Generous"

Postby Everyday Hunter » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:24 pm

JPH wrote:That is exactly why we as gun owners should be the ones having this conversation, so that the regulation is not arbitrary. How many rounds does a hunter reasonably need in mag capacity?

Except for one thing. This is a Second Amendment issue, and the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

To the rest of the post -- it can be researched all anyone wants, but no one can say how many rounds will be necessary in a self-defense situation. Self-defense situations are by definition unpredictable. If I find it necessary to defend my home, my wife, my kids, or myself from four or five attackers with guns, we can make a a couple of assumptions. First, they are criminals, and they will criminally possess high-capacity magazines. Second, the Second Amendment does not limit my means of self defense.

I may be limited by what I can afford, or by current technology, but to limit the law-abiding citizen to any certain number of rounds in his magazine is to limit his right of self defense and put him at a clear disadvantage when facing armed attackers.

Steve.

P.S. Gun control is one of those things where the so-called cure to a problem is worse than the disease. History, and American's urban areas, provide plenty of evidence of that.
Last edited by Everyday Hunter on Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Add P.S.
When the Everyday Hunter isn't hunting, he's thinking about hunting, talking about hunting, dreaming about hunting, writing about hunting, or wishing he were hunting.
Image

User avatar
JPH
 
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:28 am

Re: IL Sen Durbin: 10 Rounds "Generous"

Postby JPH » Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:56 pm

First of all, you cut off the context of my statement in your quote box. I went beyond the hunting question in my comments. Secondly, when we are talking about the Constitution we seem to leave out the "well regulated" part regarding the militia. We do have the right, the authority, and the responsibility to adjust the way the militia is armed and the way they can operate.

The logic that any restriction on mag capacity is an infringement of constitutional rights can easily be turned on it's head. We have already accepted that crew served weapons, landmines and hand grenades are off limits. Should we allow Walmart to sell claymores? Does saying no limit peoples ability to protect their homes? I suppose, but you and I have accepted that most reasonable homeowners can protect their property without the use of them. We would also probably agree that claymores have a high degree or risk in regards to collateral damage. All I am suggesting is that high cap mags may need to be viewed in the same way.

User avatar
Woods Walker
 
Posts: 4898
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Northern Illinois

Re: IL Sen Durbin: 10 Rounds "Generous"

Postby Woods Walker » Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:24 pm

Claymores?? LOL! Let's rein it in there a bit J'per. A more accurate comparison of a Claymore would be to a loaded, cocked, firearm set up with a tripwire to kill anything that sets it off. And THAT is wrong an should be an illegal use of a firearm. In fact, any explosive device IMO goes beyond what an "arm" is. But no one here is calling for those items to be legal for all to own either. Let's stick to reality.

And the reality is that politicians like our Honorable Senator Durbin are trying to take from us what they have no right or legal authority to take...unless they're God...and they're not.

I see us sitting here discussing what which part of our rights that we should give up akin to a pen full of sheep that are being culled for slaughter. We all huddle near the fence hoping that this time it isn't US that gets pulled out of the herd. But it really doesn't matter because our time WILL come. But that's how they do it. If they tried to take the whole herd at once there'd be pandemonium and chaos, so they do it one piece at a time...."reasonably"....to use their terminology.

Don't be fooled! They'd like nothing better than to have us weed ourselves out for them!
Hunt Hard,

Kill Swiftly,

Waste Nothing,

Offer No Apologies.....

>>>--------------------------------->
NRA Endowment Life Member

User avatar
Everyday Hunter
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:12 am

Re: IL Sen Durbin: 10 Rounds "Generous"

Postby Everyday Hunter » Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:14 pm

Actually, JPH, even though I quoted only part of what you said, I clearly acknowledged that you were also talking about self-defense. And, I did address the issue you raised about magazine limitation in your comments about self-defense. Who can put a limit on the number of bullets I need when faced with multiple armed criminals invading my house? Any study that claims "most of the time X number of shots are needed" will not account for the times when more than that are needed.

As far as claymores, mines, grenade launchers, nuclear missiles go, that's a straw man. No one is asking that question. Gun owners have given up a lot over the years. We can't give up what it takes to defend ourselves with the same conventional weapons that criminals are using. Take them away from the criminals, and then we'll have the discussion about gun control, but take them away from the criminals and we won't need to have the discussion. Until then, if the cure for gun violence is to control the guns of the law-abiding, the cure will be worse than the disease.

Steve.
When the Everyday Hunter isn't hunting, he's thinking about hunting, talking about hunting, dreaming about hunting, writing about hunting, or wishing he were hunting.
Image

User avatar
kellory
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:01 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: IL Sen Durbin: 10 Rounds "Generous"

Postby kellory » Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:28 pm

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/20 ... 26432.html

From the Federalist Papers #46 James Madison. :"
Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."

According to Madison, WE are to be the militia that will fight a standing army if raised against us by the Federal Government. We are to be it's equal and the victor by force of arms, and the strength of numbers.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah114.htm In addition, the 2nd Amendment to our federal Constitution recognizes that this God-given right to keep and bear arms is to be free from any interference WHATSOEVER from the federal government.

Furthermore, the federal government is nowhere in the Constitution granted authority to restrict, in any fashion whatsoever, guns, ammunition, etc. Thus, ALL laws made by Congress, ALL regulations made by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco (BAFT), are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers granted to Congress and to the Executive Branch by our Constitution. Regulation of arms and ammunition is NOT one of the “enumerated powers” delegated to Congress or the Executive Branch.

Furthermore, all pretended regulations made by the BAFT are also unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution, which vests ALL legislative powers granted by the Constitution in CONGRESS. Executive agencies have no lawful authority whatsoever to make rules or regulations of general application to The People!

The fact of the matter, is we the People, have no reason what so ever to accept regulation, and restrictions to the Second amendment. It is the cornerstone, the linchpin, the fundamental backbone of all or our rights and freedoms. The Second amendment is the watchdog of our Rights, and allowing ANY of his teeth to be pulled,under the idea of he still has plenty left, just means they will be back for another tooth soon enough, then another, in till, the dog can only howl at the moon, for he has no bite left. It isn't a valid argument that he doesn't NEED all those teeth, they will do the job they are meant to do, as long as we do not allow them to be pulled.
The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests