I'm surprised nobody has remarked about the quite surreal response by the NRA given after the Newtown tragedy. Even usual conservative papers are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case.

Why is it that the NRA can't even have an adult conversation about tho topic of gun violence without going into near apoplexy over the notion that a weapon was even at the crime scene?

The NRA has the potential here to add constructive representation to the firearm violence discussion which is going to happen this year like it or not...but this early position I think has done much to hurt their credibility and likely their membership as well.

-spence

I agree and disagree. Their response was out completely out of touch and not well thought out. They need to have an adult conversation and appear unwilling to do so. On the other hand, I think you will see membership soar, along with the huge surge in handgun license applications and weapons purchases this past week. Personally, I joined a gun club after the election (before Newtown) and their applications were up 300% since Obamas re-election. Unfortunately, this event will polarize rather than unify.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm surprised nobody has remarked about the quite surreal response by the NRA given after the Newtown tragedy. Even usual conservative papers are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case. got any examples?

Why is it that the NRA can't even have an adult conversation about tho topic of gun violence (With whom, Joe Biden? pleeeeze....the President?...nope..he's off bodysurfing in Hawaii for a few weeks and at a cost of many millions for his entertainment as the country slides into economic distress, but we've got his number if we need to get in touch...right???...how about Harry Reid?...he can't pass a budget never mind have an adult conversation.....the attorney general...he's not big on conversations and they are usually 1 way and race related... )without going into near apoplexy over the notion that a weapon was even at the crime scene? tough to find a good productive conversation these days...ain't it?

The NRA has the potential here to add constructive representation to the firearm violence discussion which is going to happen this year like it or not (I'm pretty sure there's been a long ongoing discussion on the topic of firearm violence)...but this early position I think has done much to hurt their credibility and likely their membership as well. membership appears to be soaring :)

-spence
:fishin:

strictest gun laws in the nation I think...Obamaland

Since Jan. 1, Chicago police have recorded 2,364 shooting incidents and 487 homicides, 87 percent of them gun-related. Shootings have increased 12 percent this year and homicides are up 19 percent.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/chicago-grapples-with-gun-violence-murder-toll-soars/2012/12/20/b16601fe-4a1e-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html

And the Democrats response hasn't been predictable ???
Strange we didn't hear much from the media about the Washington Mall shooting. The one where an armed civilian put a stop to a potential mass tragedy. Banning "assault weapons" is symbolic and might make you feel better bit it won't solve anything.
But then it never is about fixing the problem now is it ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why is it that the NRA can't even have an adult conversation about tho topic of gun violence without going into near apoplexy over the notion that a weapon was even at the crime scene?

-spence
You mean exactly the same response as the "fingers-in-their-ear, only the police and military should have guns, ban all guns" crowd has been for the last week?

The anti-gun crowd doesn't want to have a conversation. Anything other than the NRA saying "yes we agree. Those scary black guns that are not at all 'military-style assault rifles' should be banned." will be met with cried of how the NRA wants more children to die.

Here's the #1 clue that the anti-gun crowd is operating on emotion, as opposed to reason:
They use catch phrases like "common sense", "reasonable reform" and "win-win" without any empirical support because none of the factual statistics support their emotionally-charged, irrational claims.

Murdoch, Wash Times, NY Daily News, National Review even Michael Steel! etc... etc...

Buck, the "symbolic" argument is the same old nonsense and completely avoids the real issues of firearm violence. You can't deny that a non-assault rife would have been as deadly in the same situation combined with the other factors.

Even if mass shootings are rare, as ScottW indicates, general violence from guns is still rampant. Statistically we're keeping company with the Third World...

By Washington Mall you mean the incident in 2005?

-spence

You mean exactly the same response as the "fingers-in-their-ear, only the police and military should have guns, ban all guns" crowd has been for the last week?
I've not heard anything that resembles of what you speak.

Perhaps you've been reading too much MoveOn?

-spence

Murdoch, Wash Times, NY Daily News, National Review even Michael Steel! etc... etc...

-spence

you didn't actually read any of it...did you?

What have you heard then Spence? I have been waiting for the response from your credible sources.(other than knocking the NRA)

you didn't actually read any of it...did you?

Why yes, I actually did.

-spence

What have you heard then Spence? I have been waiting for the response from your credible sources.(other than knocking the NRA)

Response from? Not sure I understand the question.

What I have heard is a large number of Republican voices speaking out in favor of some action. What that really means is certainly up for debate.

-spence

Murdoch, Wash Times, NY Daily News, National Review even Michael Steel! etc... etc...

Buck, the "symbolic" argument is the same old nonsense and completely avoids the real issues of firearm violence. You can't deny that a non-assault rife would have been as deadly in the same situation combined with the other factors.

Even if mass shootings are rare, as ScottW indicates, general violence from guns is still rampant. Statistically we're keeping company with the Third World...

By Washington Mall you mean the incident in 2005?

-spence

I meant the Oregon mall sorry. But I understand why that didn't pop into your head.
Spence there can be meaningful debate... As soon as they realize banning guns doesn't work.
Heavily penalizing gun violence does work. Something the NRA has worked hard for.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A very horrific tragedy...lets hope it never happens again

Spence:La Pierre mentions to put cops in schools and you and your progressive party call him a nut case...where was your group when Bill Clinton mentioned putting cops in schools...he even appropriated monies to do it..."cops never placed.'...

News media reports that an automatic weapon was used...now your president keeps saying he wants to band automatic weapons scaring the mis informed public....it is hard to get a permit for an automatic weapon....need a class 3 license....weapon used not an automatic...just as much damage would have been done with a Klock

What R cops going to do at the school...it will provide a falsehood of being safe....there was an armed guard at the columbine tradegy...a cop will not be alert for 8 hrs....they R not alert doing road duty...we expect them to sit for 8 hrs.reading a news paper and or take a break to urinate or smoke break...if correct the guard at columbine took a break at the time of that shooting spree.

Why yes, I actually did.

-spence

you went from..

"Even usual conservative papers are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case."

and then this:

"Murdoch, Wash Times, NY Daily News, National Review even Michael Steel! etc... etc..."



I asked for examples...Murdoch has long been a gun control advocate and
Steele said this...

“I don’t even know where to begin. As a supporter of the Second Amendment and a supporter of the NRA — even though I’m not a member of the NRA — I just found it very haunting and very disturbing that our country now is talking about arming our teachers and our principals in classrooms,” Steele said on MSNBC immediately after LaPierre finished his comments.

in respose to Lapierre saying this:

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, The ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- The nation's largest gun-rights lobby is calling for armed police officers to be posted in every American school to stop the next killer "waiting in the wings."

The National Rifle Association broke its silence Friday on last week's shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school that left 26 children and staff dead.

He blamed video games, movies and music videos for exposing children to a violent culture day in and day out.

LaPierre stood by remarks he made at an event Friday billed as a news conference -- though he took no questions -- in which he argued for armed guards in schools.

"If it's crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy," he said on Sunday.


"We're going to support an immediate appropriation before Congress to put police officers in every school," he vowed.

I guess Steele didn't listen very closely...:confused:

so what are the "conservative papers are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case"? etc....etc....because I haven't seen it and I actually read conservative papers


I don't know how effective having security at schools will/would be, I know that it's a likely deterrent, I know that many schools already have security and those are probably the schools that most of our politician's children happen to attend...:uhuh: if you are a progressive democrat...just look at it as an opportunity to create another bureaucracy with new union members:)


...Merry Christmas to all of you!!!!

just a sidenote....Politico then took Steeles comments and titled their article on the subject to claim that Steele called Lapierre's comments "haunting and very disturbing" ....you see how it works:uhuh:

you should have seen the lines at the gun counter at Cabelas last night.

I meant the Oregon mall sorry. But I understand why that didn't pop into your head.
Spence there can be meaningful debate... As soon as they realize banning guns doesn't work.
Heavily penalizing gun violence does work. Something the NRA has worked hard for.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can understand how it's easy to confuse shootings, there's been so many in recent memory. It's also probably a stretch to claim the incident was stopped by a concealed carry. He said he didn't shoot because there was another person he could have hit. To say the shooter just happened to see his handgun and decided to kill himself instead is taking a giant leap of faith...

I'm not saying that people are going to stop wanting firearms, I'm stating that the banner of the NRA as the protector of the Second Amendment will continue to be tarnished if they can't engage in a reasonable debate.

Aside from some papers there have been a number of Republicans rethinking their position on how we regulate guns.

-spence

I can understand how it's easy to confuse shootings, there's been so many in recent memory. It's also probably a stretch to claim the incident was stopped by a concealed carry. He said he didn't shoot because there was another person he could have hit. To say the shooter just happened to see his handgun and decided to kill himself instead is taking a giant leap of faith...

I'm not saying that people are going to stop wanting firearms, I'm stating that the banner of the NRA as the protector of the Second Amendment will continue to be tarnished if they can't engage in a reasonable debate.

Aside from some papers there have been a number of Republicans rethinking their position on how we regulate guns.

-spence

Regulating guns is different than regulating people. The second amendment is not about regulating guns. It is about the right of the people to own them. If it were possible, and it may be, to regulate the manufacture of guns to only fire when used by those legally issued to own them, that would go a long way to prevent gun violence by those who steal them, borrow them, or buy them illegally.

As far as the NRA not engaging in a reasonable debate, I am sure that it believes it is being reasonable and that the anti-gunners are not. To dismiss, out of hand, statements and positions of the NRA as being unreasonable, seems unreasonable to me. To accuse them of not being able to have an adult discussion, then dismissing their suggestions without debating them, seems very unadult. Their so-called banner of the protector of the second amendment, if there is such a thing, has been well-earned. What other interest group has been influential enough, and engaged enough to fly such a banner? The NRA's position, if I understand it right, is that the goal of those who wish to further restrict gun ownership IS the repeal or re-interpretation of the Second Ammendment . The putative reason for banning what are called "assault" rifles is that they allow the user to kill larger numbers in a shorter time. I have not understood what the acceptable number of victims is before "something must be done." People have been arguing that "something must be done" about handguns for a long time. And handguns have been used to kill far more people in this country than those killed by "assault" weapons. The whole argument has long been about criminals killing people, not how many. And if you can set a precedent that some guns can be used to kill larger numbers and so must be banned, the door to banning "less" lethal guns will be opened a crack more.

I don't know where reason stands between the second ammendment and an adult or reasonable discussion about it. Arguments about what it means or what types of arms it means are like most other arguments about what portions or clauses of the Constitution "mean." That is, discussion of constitutional meaning , except by strict constructionists, are about how the Constitution can be bent or changed to fit the preference of majorities, or interest groups, or judges who feel their position to be above the law and are thus empowered to write it.

There is nothing in the unammended Constitution that gives the Federal Government the power to regulate private gun ownership. The Second Ammendment was not needed in that regard. Madison warned against such ammendments. The Constitution, as written, limited the central government to certain enumerated powers. The restriction of private gun ownership was not mentioned as a power or was not a part of any enumerated power. The Constitutions "silence" on the issue "means" that the Federal Government does not have the power. Madison warned against amendments that "gauranteed" rights which were already inherent in the Constitution because it would open the door to a discussion of those rights as being limited by the strict wording of the ammendment rather than being unlimited or unalienable against the power of the central government. Even worse, he warned that future mischief could be done to the entire body of the Constitution by the addition of a bill of rights because that bill could be construed as the limit of the people's rights rather than the people's rights being the vast majority which are left to them by limiting the government to the few enumerated powers. He reluctantly wrote the first set of ammendments so that the States, whose reprentatives vehemently wanted a bill of rights, would all agree to and accept the Constitution. What he feared has to a great extent happended. SCOTUS judges most often now only give strict scrutiny to Federal infraction of a few rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, the rest of the Constitution having been re-interpreted to mean whatever five or more judges wish it to mean. And even those rights in the Bill of Rights have become weaker, including not only the right to bear arms but also freedom of speech and religion. And the massive changes and effective negation of the Constitution have come about by "reasonable" jurisprudence.

Aside from some papers there have been a number of Republicans rethinking their position on how we regulate guns.

-spence

let's see..."...."papers" and republicans rethinking their positions, a large number of Republican voices speaking out in favor of some action, usual conservative "papers" are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case"


just stick with vague and broad :uhuh: when did "papers" start drilling and (re)thinking :confused:

I've been waiting for this thread.

This is truly the thread I can separate the political fanboys from those who actually have a clue and know wtf they are talking about.

:lurk:Bring it on boys.I know there are two representing either side of the aisle who say equally some of the dumbest things that could be uttered on this subject.

C'mon guys don't fail me now.I need to truly be disappointed by some real stupidity.

Here is my 2 cents, The media in this country sucks. They try to one up each other, and never wait for the facts to come out, often erroneously reporting facts. They originally reported he used an AR, but the police stated they found 4 handguns in the school, and they found one long gun in the trunk of the car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo
In the video of them opening the trunk of the car, the long gun in question appears to possibly be a tactical shotgun. Feinstein let it be known long before the election that she was going to push an assault weapons ban again, and they are using the erroneous news reports to push her bull#^&#^&#^&#^& agenda. Automatic weapons are already heavily restricted, you need a class 3 license to buy one, then the guns usually are in the thousand of dollars, on top of that is the large tax you pay to own them.

Should there be some regulations on guns absolutely, but these regulations should not be made by people who are largely uneducated with regards to firearms.

Some things that need to change, in the south most states only require you to be a resident and show a drivers license to buy a gun. This need to change, they need to make people get a gun license, and pass a strict background check, period. I know of stories of people from down south that come up here, with 10 handguns serial numbers obliterated to sell on the street, these are your straw purchasers. They usually come up to visit relatives, but their primarily reside down south.

I am all for a magazine restriction, no one really needs 100 round Beta mags.

Institute a tax break or incentive for people to buy gun safes. I have a combination lock gun safe and I can get into it in under 5 seconds. Again no big deal.

The type of gun has no meaning, a gun is a gun , is a gun, they all go boom and can all kill you so banning a certain type is not going to solve anything, and it would take a very long time for a gun ban to go into effect. Btw the governments own studies show that the 94 law was largely in effective in reducing gun crime or deaths. So does it really work?

What will work tomorrow or right away? Armed security or police officers in the schools will work. This can be implemented right away, temporarily use current police, and hire a new armed school police force. Cost should not be a factor, we spend millions upon millions of dollars in foreign aid, lets cut that back and take care of our own kids.

Here is my 2 cents, The media in this country sucks.

the "apoplexy" that Spence speaks of is actually on the part of the main stream media and their political allies defaulting to a predictable emotional narrative that ignores facts and drums ahead with a political agenda...it shouldn't be surprising....

41-47% of a
Americans report owning a gun. Pretty high percentage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why is it that the NRA can't even have an adult conversation about tho topic of gun violence without going into near apoplexy over the notion that a weapon was even at the crime scene?
-spence

Why is it that the NRA is the bad guy every time some #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& comes into possession of a "high capacity weapon" that shoots a bullet every time you pull the trigger. Every gun shoots a bullet every time you pull the trigger. If someone shoots six people with a model 28-2 .357 magnum and then reloads with a speed loader, archaic as that sounds, some journalist would call that a semi-automatic as well. There are magazines that hold less rounds than thirty, but if your practiced, whether it holds thirty or ten rounds your going to kill a bunch of people. The NRA isn't the problem here by a long shot, but it works out great that the knee jerk reactionaries think they are because it takes the heat away from the electorate.

And by the way, several years ago in Massachusetts the Mass Teachers Assoc. had thier members do a little in the classroom polling. The teachers were instructed to have the children in the classrooms, lay thier heads down and the children were asked to raise thier hands if there was a gun in the house. 75% of the children raised thier hands. This way about twenty years ago this happened. Thats why the legislators never do anything against gun ownership. They don't want to anger a 75% majority.

The NRA needs a new spokesperson. The only person worse would be #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney.

I donated once to the NRA and then they bombarded my house asking for money. I promptly told them to stuff it and have never donated since. I would give money to GOAL first.

I would give money to GOAL first.

X2
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not sure if it has been mentioned, but i would bet a coffee that the fiscal cliff talks fell apart because the GOP is bringing this issue into the debate as a bartering tool. Before the shooting, everything seemed ok and then suddenly without any explanation things fell apart.

not sure if it has been mentioned, but i would bet a coffee that the fiscal cliff talks fell apart because the GOP is bringing this issue into the debate as a bartering tool. Before the shooting, everything seemed ok and then suddenly without any explanation things fell apart.

Could be but I think it's a much larger issue................
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not sure if it has been mentioned, but i would bet a coffee that the fiscal cliff talks fell apart because the GOP is bringing this issue into the debate as a bartering tool. Before the shooting, everything seemed ok and then suddenly without any explanation things fell apart.
Or exactly the opposite. Why couldn't the Dems be saying, "Listen, we want XYZ immediate restrictions of firearms and on the flip side, we'll agree to tax cut extensions."

Then, the Dems get to come out like heroes because "See, guns are a major issue and look how quickly we are willing to fix them *and* avoid the fiscal cliff". While on the other hand, the Republicans avoid pissing off one voting base while enraging another.

Either way, whatever comes from any of this will be forgotten by most voters when the next set of elections come in two years.

True.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not sure if it has been mentioned, but i would bet a coffee that the fiscal cliff talks fell apart because the GOP is bringing this issue into the debate as a bartering tool. Before the shooting, everything seemed ok and then suddenly without any explanation things fell apart.

No!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the "apoplexy" that Spence speaks of is actually on the part of the main stream media and their political allies defaulting to a predictable emotional narrative that ignores facts and drums ahead with a political agenda...it shouldn't be surprising....

You mean like the boob who asked the DC police if it was alright to use a hi cap magazine on his show and was denied since they are against the law and did it anyway. BTW notice Lapierre's response at the end, spot on since they are banned in DC and the asshat had one.

Police probe gun magazine incident on TV show - Arts & Entertainment - Charleston Daily Mail - West Virginia News and Sports - (http://dailymail.com/Entertainment/201212260211)



TELL ME HOW THOSE GUN LAWS ARE WORKING SPENCE?

You mean like the boob who asked the DC police if it was alright to use a hi cap magazine on his show and was denied since they are against the law and did it anyway. BTW notice Lapierre's response at the end, spot on since they are banned in DC and the asshat had one.

Police probe gun magazine incident on TV show - Arts & Entertainment - Charleston Daily Mail - West Virginia News and Sports - (http://dailymail.com/Entertainment/201212260211)



TELL ME HOW THOSE GUN LAWS ARE WORKING SPENCE?
Maybe agenda-driven questions like this are why the NRA is so apprehensive to having discussions with the unreasonable:
"Here is a magazine for ammunition that carries 30 bullets. Now, isn't it possible if we got rid of these, if we replaced them and said, 'Well, you can only have a magazine that carries five bullets or ten bullets,' isn't it just possible that we could reduce the carnage in a situation like Newtown?'"

Next, let's go to an AA meeting, hold up a bottle of high-proof vodka and ask:
"Here's a bottle of 120 proof vodka. Now, isn't it possible if we got rid of these high alcohol spirits and said 'you can only have say 40 proof or 70 proof vodka,' isn't it just possible we could reduce the deaths due to driving drunk?"

Maybe agenda-driven questions like this are why the NRA is so apprehensive to having discussions with the unreasonable:


Next, let's go to an AA meeting, hold up a bottle of high-proof vodka and ask:
"Here's a bottle of 120 proof vodka. Now, isn't it possible if we got rid of these high alcohol spirits and said 'you can only have say 40 proof or 70 proof vodka,' isn't it just possible we could reduce the deaths due to driving drunk?"


Now we would be logical. :D
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe agenda-driven questions like this are why the NRA is so apprehensive to having discussions with the unreasonable:


Next, let's go to an AA meeting, hold up a bottle of high-proof vodka and ask:
"Here's a bottle of 120 proof vodka. Now, isn't it possible if we got rid of these high alcohol spirits and said 'you can only have say 40 proof or 70 proof vodka,' isn't it just possible we could reduce the deaths due to driving drunk?"

Johnny D, why is it unreasonable to assume that if you eliminate high capacity magazines, you can lower the body count?

Your analogy to alcohol is off. If vodka is banned, you're right that I can get just as drunk drinking beer. But in the case of these shootings, there have been documented cases where the shooter is stopped when he pauses to reload. That's fact. It also seems like common sense to me. The harder it is to shoot a ton of bullets, the lower the expected body count.

To me, the flaw in the argument for banning those magazines is, you can't confiscate the ones that are out there. So maybe it's 15 years from now before that has any effect, because a then-18 year-old can't get a high-capacity magazine.

I lso feel that any discussion around gun control is, at best, going to lower the body count after these attacks happen. Better to discuss what causes them in the first place, but liberals won't want to talk about looking at movie violence, video game violence, committing folks who appear to be insane, and family values.

Your analogy to alcohol is off. If vodka is banned, you're right that I can get just as drunk drinking beer. But in the case of these shootings, there have been documented cases where the shooter is stopped when he pauses to reload. That's fact. It also seems like common sense to me. The harder it is to shoot a ton of bullets, the lower the expected body count.
I apologize for having only but a minute, so I'll make a few outrageous claims and then come back to cite them tomorrow and correct inaccuracies. However, the following should give enough info to get people down the path of the FACTS, as opposed to media driven hysteria. The Denver shooter allegedly had a drum magazine jam which brought his spree to an end and I believe the Oregon shooter had a 30rd magazine jam and then a person with a legal Carry permit took aim at him, didn't shoot due to concerns of bystander safety and then the Oregon shooter shot himself.

Large capacity magazines are notorious for jamming, especially when it comes to rifle caliber cartridges - not so much for pistol cartridges or .22lr.

The previous ban on magazines over 10rds was only for magazines manufactured post-1994. However, it is relatively impossible to tell the difference between many pre and post manufactured magazines. Also, there are millions and millions of magazines available from as long as 30 years ago such as military surplus. A ban would do nothing to reduce availability.

You're a man of numbers. There's a reason why gun-grabbers use terms like "sensible reform", "common sense gun laws" and other emotionally-driven yet unsubstantiated terminology. Because there is *zero empirical evidence* that verifies any reduction in deaths due to the previous Federal Assault Weapon Ban.

Lastly, which situation was actually stopped when the shooter stopped to reload? Denver and CT were both "Gun Free Zones" so there should have been zero legally-armed citizens. As such, there was no opportunity for the shooter to be stopped while reloading.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

It seems like most shooting sprees end when the shooter puts a bullet into his own head......maybe if we can just get them to start there 1st.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I apologize for having only but a minute, so I'll make a few outrageous claims and then come back to cite them tomorrow and correct inaccuracies. However, the following should give enough info to get people down the path of the FACTS, as opposed to media driven hysteria. The Denver shooter allegedly had a drum magazine jam which brought his spree to an end and I believe the Oregon shooter had a 30rd magazine jam and then a person with a legal Carry permit took aim at him, didn't shoot due to concerns of bystander safety and then the Oregon shooter shot himself.

Large capacity magazines are notorious for jamming, especially when it comes to rifle caliber cartridges - not so much for pistol cartridges or .22lr.

The previous ban on magazines over 10rds was only for magazines manufactured post-1994. However, it is relatively impossible to tell the difference between many pre and post manufactured magazines. Also, there are millions and millions of magazines available from as long as 30 years ago such as military surplus. A ban would do nothing to reduce availability.

You're a man of numbers. There's a reason why gun-grabbers use terms like "sensible reform", "common sense gun laws" and other emotionally-driven yet unsubstantiated terminology. Because there is *zero empirical evidence* that verifies any reduction in deaths due to the previous Federal Assault Weapon Ban.

Lastly, which situation was actually stopped when the shooter stopped to reload? Denver and CT were both "Gun Free Zones" so there should have been zero legally-armed citizens. As such, there was no opportunity for the shooter to be stopped while reloading.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

You are not in the habit of making outrageous claims.

I'll see which mass shooting, if there was one, was stopped when the killer stopped to reload.

Look, I'm no anti-gun nut. It just seems like common sense to me that it's easier for me to kill more people with a 30-round magazine than with 3 ten-round magazines. If I'm wrong, and I may be, then that should be the end of the discussion. But if my goal is to kill as many people as possible, I'll take a rifle with a high-capacity magazine over a revolver every day.

If we are serious about making changes (and I see no evidence we are), we need to make gun control decisions that are based on fact, not emotion. In my opinion, the gun-control issue is less important than the required discussion about the crap in movies and video games we bombard our kids with.

In a free society, we will have these things happen on occasion, that's the price we pay for our freedom. But if we can reduce the frequency and severity of these attacks without trampling on the constitution, I'm all for it.

A trained shooter can change a magazine in about 3 to 5 seconds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look, I'm no anti-gun nut. It just seems like common sense to me that it's easier for me to kill more people with a 30-round magazine than with 3 ten-round magazines.

So what is the acceptable number of people that are allowed to be killed before it is necessary to "control" guns? Is it ten? If one ten round clip should be the max as many state, and assuming that every shot is a kill, would ten be the acceptable number? That might even be reduced to nine since the killer would likely save the last bullet for himself, and his death would not matter. I just find it peculiar to envision a round table of policy makers discussing the right number. Sort of like a ghoulish "kill control," or "number control," then passing the right "gun control" which would limit capacity to the decided number, and the citizens then being pleased that they finally "did something about it."

Traditionally, "gun control" has not been about such numbers. The VAST MAJORITY of death by gun crime in our country has been done by other than "assault type" guns. That larger number, mostly by handguns, has been the constant impetus to "control" guns. The occasional mass murders have just become the "crises" that must not be allowed to go to waste in order to push the issue. Way back in 1994 when "certain military-style-semi-automatic weapons" were banned, a Washington Post editorial said this:

"No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. the provision is MAINLY SYMBOLIC; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, AS HOPED, A STEPPING STONE to broader gun control."

The ultimate goal has always been very broad "gun control," not just so-called assault or semi-automatic, or large clip weapons.

If we are serious about making changes (and I see no evidence we are), we need to make gun control decisions that are based on fact, not emotion. In my opinion, the gun-control issue is less important than the required discussion about the crap in movies and video games we bombard our kids with.

I agree about larger issues and deeper reasons, but when we go about "controlling" all those issues there is really no end to what will be "controlled."

In a free society, we will have these things happen on occasion, that's the price we pay for our freedom. But if we can reduce the frequency and severity of these attacks without trampling on the constitution, I'm all for it.

A free society, one worthy of our Constitution, is a virtuous society. The Founders understood that without virtue, neither the Constitution nor freedom would be viable. The only way to reduce the frequency of abominations is to instill, instruct, and raise a people who cherish honor, virtue, and righteous lives.

The abandonment of the Constitution (and its insistance that we govern ourselves--that our inalienable right to liberty is also an undeniable duty to be responsible which requires the ultimate virtue) is a stepping stone to the destruction of that virtue as we forgo our rights and responsibilities by transferring those duties to the government. In having lost control of those rights and responsibilities, we must be controlled by government. The ultimate control is not gun control. It is control of the people.

World Record 12 Shots In Under 3 Seconds - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw)

A trained shooter can change a magazine in about 3 to 5 seconds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was waiting for someone to chime in on this..It does not matter what the gun is. If a psycho wants to kill a bunch of people they will find a way weather its a gun, knife, vehicle, bomb, poison/chemical, fire, whatever.

I am not going to debate gun control but we all know it wont keep the criminals from getting them or finding even more destructive ways to carry out there sick killing schemes :(

The largest school killing in US history happened in 1927.......guy bombed an elementary school killing 38 kids. There was the subway sarin gas attack in Tokyo. Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City......if someone wants to kill a large amount of people they will figure out a way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are not in the habit of making outrageous claims.

I'll see which mass shooting, if there was one, was stopped when the killer stopped to reload.

Look, I'm no anti-gun nut. It just seems like common sense to me that it's easier for me to kill more people with a 30-round magazine than with 3 ten-round magazines. If I'm wrong, and I may be, then that should be the end of the discussion. But if my goal is to kill as many people as possible, I'll take a rifle with a high-capacity magazine over a revolver every day.

If we are serious about making changes (and I see no evidence we are), we need to make gun control decisions that are based on fact, not emotion. In my opinion, the gun-control issue is less important than the required discussion about the crap in movies and video games we bombard our kids with.

In a free society, we will have these things happen on occasion, that's the price we pay for our freedom. But if we can reduce the frequency and severity of these attacks without trampling on the constitution, I'm all for it.

Have you ever had a gun pointed at you?
There are two types of people in this world, Fight or Flight, and 99.9 % are flight type people.
If a guys is fumbling with a magazine any unarmed person is going to take flight, so he will just change it out and keep going. An armed person is more likely to make a stand and end the situation, but since there are fewer legally armed citizens in the country than unarmed, you will end up with more casualties, and less people putting an end to the threat. Most people who are adept with firearms are not going to let a magazine change stop them from their intent.

BTW I know what it is like to have a gun stuck in my face as a victim of an Armed Robbery when I was 16, it is not a very pleasant feeling, and believe me if my cousin had a gun behind the counter I would have fought back...

The largest school killing in US history happened in 1927.......guy bombed an elementary school killing 38 kids. There was the subway sarin gas attack in Tokyo. Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City......if someone wants to kill a large amount of people they will figure out a way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

TDF, do you believe these things you type, or are you contrarian just for the sake of it?

You're absolutely right. We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop 100% of vilent crime. So let's shut down prisons, abandon the police force, and leave our doors open at night.

Wee can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all car accidents. So let's get rid of laws that prohibit drunk driving, and let 4 year-olds drive on the highway.

We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all fires, right? So let's get rid of the fire department, and abolish laws that pertain to fire safety.

This is your logic.

We pass laws that increase saefty without trampling on our freedoms. we can't stop everything. Maybe we can lower the body count the next time some kook snaps and reaches for the weapons he's legally allowed to buy at that time.

TDF, answer one question? If a kook snaps at your kids' school, you see no difference in the expected body count, whether the kook has a rock, a knife, a handgun, or a rifle with a high-capacity magazine? Those situations are all identical?

Have you ever had a gun pointed at you?
There are two types of people in this world, Fight or Flight, and 99.9 % are flight type people.
If a guys is fumbling with a magazine any unarmed person is going to take flight, so he will just change it out and keep going. An armed person is more likely to make a stand and end the situation, but since there are fewer legally armed citizens in the country than unarmed, you will end up with more casualties, and less people putting an end to the threat. Most people who are adept with firearms are not going to let a magazine change stop them from their intent.

BTW I know what it is like to have a gun stuck in my face as a victim of an Armed Robbery when I was 16, it is not a very pleasant feeling, and believe me if my cousin had a gun behind the counter I would have fought back...

I'm not anti-gun, I am aware of what happens in cities where guns are banned. All I'm saying is, and this is irrefutable, it's harder for the averake kook to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is with a rifle.

You're talking about typical street crime. I'm talking about the much rarer situation where someone snaps and wants to kill as many people as possible. I'm not talking robbery, I'm talking about random mass murder. In that scenario, I'm pretty sure we are all better off if that guy has a handgun than a rifle with a high-capacity magazine.

To answer your question, I am a combat vet. And every time I was in for-real combat, I would have been much happier if the bad guys had handguns instead of automatic weapons.

You people are denying that guns are more dangerous than my bare hands, and denying that machine guns are more lethal than handguns? I don't get that argument.

"If a guys is fumbling with a magazine any unarmed person is going to take flight,"

Wrong. Tell that to the principal and the psychologist of Sandy Hook school who died rushing the shooter while he was still shooting. If that kook had to stop to re-load at that time, there is a getter chance they could have overpowered him just long enough for the cavalry to arrive.

I would never say that banning high capacity magazines will end crime. However, I can't believe some people are denying that these weapons make it easier to kill large numbers of people. why do you think the Marines are issued rifles? To twirl around at parades? For the exercise we get carrying them around?

A free society, one worthy of our Constitution, is a virtuous society. The Founders understood that without virtue, neither the Constitution nor freedom would be viable. The only way to reduce the frequency of abominations is to instill, instruct, and raise a people who cherish honor, virtue, and righteous lives.

The abandonment of the Constitution (and its insistance that we govern ourselves--that our inalienable right to liberty is also an undeniable duty to be responsible which requires the ultimate virtue) is a stepping stone to the destruction of that virtue as we forgo our rights and responsibilities by transferring those duties to the government. In having lost control of those rights and responsibilities, we must be controlled by government. The ultimate control is not gun control. It is control of the people.

I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.

I'm not saying I necessarily support a ban on these things, for the exact reasons you mention. But we need to have an honest conversation about the pros and cons that are based on facts and common sense.

TDF, do you believe these things you type, or are you contrarian just for the sake of it?

You're absolutely right. We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop 100% of vilent crime. So let's shut down prisons, abandon the police force, and leave our doors open at night.

Wee can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all car accidents. So let's get rid of laws that prohibit drunk driving, and let 4 year-olds drive on the highway.

We can't pass a law that is guaranteed to stop all fires, right? So let's get rid of the fire department, and abolish laws that pertain to fire safety.



This is your logic.

We pass laws that increase saefty without trampling on our freedoms. we can't stop everything. Maybe we can lower the body count the next time some kook snaps and reaches for the weapons he's legally allowed to buy at that time.

TDF, answer one question? If a kook snaps at your kids' school, you see no difference in the expected body count, whether the kook has a rock, a knife, a handgun, or a rifle with a high-capacity magazine? Those situations are all identical?

So what body count is the right number? Are we OK with ten dead before we pass a law? Is the magic number twenty? Every one of those 20, or 10, or 5, is a one to the parents that lose a child. To each of those parents one is the limit.

If we can't pass a law to keep all kooks off the streets and out of society, what law will stop them from killing the all important number? Kooks drive cars and start fires too. How many deaths per fire or car accident do we allow them before we pass a law to stop them?

The major difference, among many, between the right to bear arms and driving or having access to flammables is the specific prohibition in the Constitution against government denying citizens the ownership of guns. While neither owning cars or matches are also not prohibited by the Constitution, the specific listing of guns, for specific all-important reasons, also prohibits the States from denying the right to bear arms.

The Constitution reserves the legislation of criminal or civil law to the States, and to the Federal Government only those laws legislated under the umbrella of its enumerated powers.

You don't want to trample the Constitution, but you might be a little more hesitant about the constant nibbling at it. Gun "control" laws, as limited as they might constitutionally be, should be reserved to the States. Do you notice how "gun control" has been made a Federal issue?

I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.

If the Constitution is silent on something that does not fall under the purview of the Federal Government's enumerated powers, it means that the Federal Government has no power to regulate or legislate re that thing.

I'm not saying I necessarily support a ban on these things, for the exact reasons you mention. But we need to have an honest conversation about the pros and cons that are based on facts and common sense.

I don't think that anyone denies that "assault-type" or automatic weapons allow you to kill mass numbers more quickly than non-automatic hand guns. If we can get the conversation beyond that point it might be meaningful. If that IS the point the discussion is not only creepy, but rather indeterminate.

There was a law on the books that said a person convicted of a felony could not own firearms.....did that law stop the guy in NY from killing those firefighters? He served 17 years for manslaughter and still got his hands on them. So now we pass a feel good law prohibiting high capacity magazines.......if someone wants one they will still get one no matter if its legal or not.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:drevil:Don Steese column: Freedom and gun control Sports The Daily Item, Sunbury, PA (http://dailyitem.com/0200_sports/x1303499035/Don-Steese-column-Freedom-and-gun-control)
I agree pretty much totally with this guy, and this subject is just a good one to get the media off Libya.

So what body count is the right number? Are we OK with ten dead before we pass a law? Is the magic number twenty? Every one of those 20, or 10, or 5, is a one to the parents that lose a child. To each of those parents one is the limit.

If we can't pass a law to keep all kooks off the streets and out of society, what law will stop them from killing the all important number? Kooks drive cars and start fires too. How many deaths per fire or car accident do we allow them before we pass a law to stop them?

The major difference, among many, between the right to bear arms and driving or having access to flammables is the specific prohibition in the Constitution against government denying citizens the ownership of guns. While neither owning cars or matches are also not prohibited by the Constitution, the specific listing of guns, for specific all-important reasons, also prohibits the States from denying the right to bear arms.

The Constitution reserves the legislation of criminal or civil law to the States, and to the Federal Government only those laws legislated under the umbrella of its enumerated powers.

You don't want to trample the Constitution, but you might be a little more hesitant about the constant nibbling at it. Gun "control" laws, as limited as they might constitutionally be, should be reserved to the States. Do you notice how "gun control" has been made a Federal issue?

"So what body count is the right number? "

I don't know, and that's exactly why we need the conversation.

Detbuch, we can save lives by banning cars. I would not support that law, because cars provide an incalculable amount of freedom to 95% of Americans. I just don't see that high capacity magazines are as essential to our way of life. If banning them saves one little kid, personally I'd be OK with banning them. I don't think that banning high capacity magazines amounts to a trampling of the constitutional right to bear arms. You could still buy the weapon, just with lower capacity magazines. That doesn't seem all that totalitarian to me.

There was a law on the books that said a person convicted of a felony could not own firearms.....did that law stop the guy in NY from killing those firefighters? He served 17 years for manslaughter and still got his hands on them. So now we pass a feel good law prohibiting high capacity magazines.......if someone wants one they will still get one no matter if its legal or not.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

TDF, all you're doing is pointing out that public safety laws are not 100% foolproof. In equally shocking news, scientists announced today that water is wet.

Using your logic, why not eliminate the police and all criminal laws? After all, those laws don't eliminate crime, right? What possible difference is there between what you said, and what I just said? You're saying that if a public safety law isn't 100% fool-proof, it's therefore useless. That's all you saying, you can say it as many times as you want, it's still idiotic.

If something is illegal, some folks will get their hands on them. But not everyone has the means to acquire illegal weapons. Nor is every crime is committed with the planning and premidation required to obtain black-market illegal weapons. Some crimes (not all, but some) are more spur-of-the-moment, and in those cases, the kook uses what's at his fingertips. In thaty scenario, the less lethal the wepon at his disposal, the lower the expected body count, all other things being equal.

I notice you chose not to answer my question about what weapon you'd prefer a would-be mass murderer to have if he went to your kids' school.

This killer in Newtown had major mental issues. It's highly unlikely he'd be able to get his hands on illegal weapons. The only person he talked to was his mother.

TDF, there isn't a single public safety law on the books that can't be circumvented. Not one. Using your 'logic', I guess we should eliminate all those laws. Incredible.

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson

An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.
Thomas Jefferson

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.
Thomas Jefferson

I notice you chose not to answer my question about what weapon you'd prefer a would-be mass murderer to have if he went to your kids' school.

A Feather Pillow.......Happy.


Have a happy New Year.......l forgot about my resolution last year......not to get into discussions with you......My blood pressure just goes through the roof......

You use your logic and l'll use mine and let's not try and understand each others....OK
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"So what body count is the right number? "

I don't know, and that's exactly why we need the conversation.

THERE . . . IS . . . NO . . . CORRECT . . . MAGIC . . . NUMBER!!!!! All numbers eventually lead to ONE! You cannot have a sensible conversation about the humane number of deaths as the correct number. This is not a discussion about old-fashioned military operations where you throw superior numbers of troops at the enemy to overpower them with the expectant number of acceptable losses on your side. The victims of mass murders which are the subject of this conversation are not draftees or volunteers who expect to fight and possibly die. They are not even armed. Every death . . . every single death is A SINGLE sorrow to be mourned. If you begin to discuss how many must be killed before "we do something" the number will EVENTUALLY be whittled down to ONE. If you wish to ban certain guns because they are used to kill innocent people, ONE is the proper number. And since all guns can be used to quickly kill a single person, ALL guns would must then be banned. That is the logical conclusion if the discussion is about numbers.

Detbuch, we can save lives by banning cars.

No, you can't save lives by banning anything we produce. The only thing that can save lives is banning death. Every minute you exist may be your last. And, unless you commit suicide, you don't know when, or how, you will die. Just about anything, including the food you eat, can kill you. What we try to do, I think, in a civil society, is to freely cooperate with one another so that we may individually pursue what we consider our happiness, and part of that cooperation is to refrain from willfully killing each other. We institute laws that punish crimes against each other. One murder is as punishable as 100 and no less an offense to civil society. It is the rogue, not the weapon, who offends. When you give greater weight to 100 deaths than to one, you diminish the loss of that death, and therefor you diminish the loss of all.

I would not support that law, because cars provide an incalculable amount of freedom to 95% of Americans. I just don't see that high capacity magazines are as essential to our way of life.

Our way of life as instituted by the Founders placed weapons capable of resisting a tyrannical government at the top echelon of what is essential to that way. The Second Ammendment and what it guarantees is the final resort to securing that freedom.

If banning them saves one little kid, personally I'd be OK with banning them. I don't think that banning high capacity magazines amounts to a trampling of the constitutional right to bear arms. You could still buy the weapon, just with lower capacity magazines. That doesn't seem all that totalitarian to me.

You're still not understanding a key point in this discussion. I know you think that citizens defending themselves against the U.S. military is a silly idea. Maybe so. 250 million well-armed citizens would be formidable if they had the courage and purpose to fight. And included in that number would, I think, be included a good portion of that military. Would you, as a soldier, if the government proclaimed martial law with the aim of collecting all weapons from the citizens and imposing an open, despotic, anti-constitutional government, the Constitution you swore to protect and defend--would you serve that government or rebel against it. But that is not the immediate point of this discussion.

The point is that the Federal Government should not be banning the guns from the hands of the citizens. Whatever, if any, banning is done should be at the State level where the citizens have more direct say whether they CHOOSE to ban high capacity magazines, etc.

I apologize for not being able to really commit to discussion and hate having to do these drive-by posts...
Wrong. Tell that to the principal and the psychologist of Sandy Hook school who died rushing the shooter while he was still shooting. If that kook had to stop to re-load at that time, there is a getter chance they could have overpowered him just long enough for the cavalry to arrive.
It's easy to support your argument with "Ifs", but the fact of the matter is that your scenario just isn't accurate. The shooter had multiple weapons on him (has there been clarity yet on exactly which?). Let's go with the last report I remember and say he had a rifle and two pistols on him. Pistols provide a level of protection for exactly the situation you bring up. When the piece of trash had to stop and reload, his pistol could be used as protection until he was able to do so.

There is little benefit to the mentality of "long enough for the cavalry to arrive." As I have stated before, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away."

I would never say that banning high capacity magazines will end crime. However, I can't believe some people are denying that these weapons make it easier to kill large numbers of people. why do you think the Marines are issued rifles? To twirl around at parades? For the exercise we get carrying them around?
(quick side story)I think it was General Pershing that said "The deadliest weapon in battle is a Marine and his rifle." I type this quote because, well for one I like it and for two, it demonstrates that a rifle is useless without a Marine behind it, just as a gun does not go bang without someone pulling the trigger. (end side story)

The Marines are issued rifles because that is the tool best suited for the job - shooting at distance.

For situations like close-quarters clearing of building, the weapon of choice is a severely modified rifle, known as a short-barreled rifle. A short-barreled rifle is illegal for a typical citizen to own without submitting an application to the ATF, paying a $200 tax and fulfilling all other requirements of the National Firearms Act.

I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.
While I'm not nearly smart enough or pretentious enough to be a lawyer it is my understanding that in law, it is taught that there is a requirement to look at "intent" when there is not 100% clarity.

Yes, the Constitution states that I have a Right to bear arms. If we interpret that literally, that could mean the government would be within the Constitution to limit people to black powder rifles and no more. However, there is a need to look at context and intent.

The Revolutionaries had just rebelled against an oppressive regime. The British were exploitative of the Colonists, over-taxed them without representation, under-supported them and had an overall disregard for a colony that was increasing the riches of the Crown (sounds familiar to being a small business owner today), not to mention the constant involuntary quartering of British troops. Publications were mostly limited to those that were sponsored by the throne. People were sentenced to imprisonment or death by a Throne-appointed magistrate.

In order to fight the oppressive regime, the colonists needed to "take arms" and fight in the face of tyranny.

Now, let's look at our Bill of Rights. Trial by jury of peers, Freedom of Speech/Religion/Press, prohibition of peacetime quartering of troops, security against unreasonable searches and seizures, a well regulated Militia, right to keep and bear arms.

All of these items are to prevent the wrongs which were committed by the British. The Revolutionaries feared a central government with too much power(hence why their first attempt to create one failed) and tried to do whatever possible to keep that central government in check when drafting the Constitution.

With the above long-winded preface in mind, the intent of the law becomes clear. The intent of the Second Amendment isn't "everyone gets to have a gun", it's that the citizens be allowed to own weapons to fight against another tyrannical government or any other regime that would get out of control. I have read speculation that the reason the right to bear arms immediately follows the First Amendment is because the Second Amendment provides a means of protection for the First Amendment.

I tend to be offended when people claim "well the Second Amendment doesn't state the type of gun", somewhat because it's the irrational response of many liberals I talk to, but mostly because it demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the principles for which this country was founded on. The claim would be no different than saying "the First Amendment states you have freedom of speech, but it doesn't state where you can speak freely," a ludicrous claim if it were ever to be made.

Large capacity magazines are notorious for jamming, especially when it comes to rifle caliber cartridges - not so much for pistol cartridges or .22lr.

This has nothing to do with the debate here but I'm curious as to why you would state this?

When I was instructing in the USAF our armory had a wide variety of rifle caliber weapons with high cap mags for dog and pony shows etc.

I don't even think I can recall a malfunction due to a magazine unless the mag itself was somehow physically damaged.Just the opposite with .22LR,the high cap mags always jammed especially the mag for the .22LR conversion kit for the M16.

In any case one of the biggest things to be considered in any magazine malfunction is the condition and quality of the ammo itself.

Sorry about going off topic.

This has nothing to do with the debate here but I'm curious as to why you would state this?
I may be speaking a bit out of turn, and should have mentioned circumstantial evidence - since living in the socialist commonwealth of Massachusetts, such world-ending destructive devices are not widely available here. The Aurora movie theater shooting is a recent example of a 100-rd drum magazine in .223 malfunctioning.

When I say "high-capacity" I'm talking magazines greater than 30 rounds. Frankly, a 30 round magazine is "standard capacity" for rifles. Politicians have re-defined "high capacity" to mean anything above 10 rounds, just as "assault weapon" is not an actual description of a firearm but a politically created term. Just as you experienced with the USAF, 30 rounds is a standard magazine size.

I apologize for the confusion by not clarifying that ahead of time. When I speak of high capacity, it's more in reference to 50 round magazines and drums. The issue arises due to politicians redefining terminology to fit their agendas. Since my experience is certainly limited to only a few opportunities shooting with 50-rd magazines, I'd definitely welcome experiences to confirm and deny what I've seen and heard.

Thankyou for the clarification.

And I would concur 100% that those large cap drum mags jam-up big time.Almost any high cap mags including the 40rd AK mags jam.30rd mags would appear to be the threshold for true functionality in a magazine from my experience.

Magazine capacity is irrelevent. Lee Harvey Oswald changed history with a bolt action Italian Army surplus rifle. We need to allow those who are LEGALLY allowed to, to arm themselves and deny those who are not. Every single thing that I can think of that is regulated in this country has a larger black market that legal one. Drugs, Guns? Maybe they all should be deregulated, when the dust clears, the problem would have taken care of itself through ODs , killings and general mayhem. Being facitious here, so keep yer panties on. We need to keep the criminal and the weapon separated. And to not deny the law abiding citizen means to his own protection. It is plain that the government cannot protect us always. Crazies and criminal are a problem that require some deep thinking..

Google the battle of Athens

I'm not anti-gun, I am aware of what happens in cities where guns are banned. All I'm saying is, and this is irrefutable, it's harder for the averake kook to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is with a rifle.

You're talking about typical street crime. I'm talking about the much rarer situation where someone snaps and wants to kill as many people as possible. I'm not talking robbery, I'm talking about random mass murder. In that scenario, I'm pretty sure we are all better off if that guy has a handgun than a rifle with a high-capacity magazine.

To answer your question, I am a combat vet. And every time I was in for-real combat, I would have been much happier if the bad guys had handguns instead of automatic weapons.



You people are denying that guns are more dangerous than my bare hands, and denying that machine guns are more lethal than handguns? I don't get that argument.

"If a guys is fumbling with a magazine any unarmed person is going to take flight,"

Wrong. Tell that to the principal and the psychologist of Sandy Hook school who died rushing the shooter while he was still shooting. If that kook had to stop to re-load at that time, there is a getter chance they could have overpowered him just long enough for the cavalry to arrive.

I would never say that banning high capacity magazines will end crime. However, I can't believe some people are denying that these weapons make it easier to kill large numbers of people. why do you think the Marines are issued rifles? To twirl around at parades? For the exercise we get carrying them around?


I am not denying that Machine guns are more dangerous than handguns, but there in lies the problem. We are not talking about machine guns, machine guns are fully automatic, hold the trigger and fire as many rounds as you have. We are talking semi automatic look a likes, big difference.

Let me give you this scenario, we were duck hunting one time, I was using a pump shotgun, Remington 870, my buddy was using his Remington 100, semi automatic. When you are duck hunting you are limited to 3 shells in the gun. A group of ducks came in and my buddy spotted them before me, yet I got up and got three shots off at ducks moving very fast and killed 2, before my buddy got off 2 shots not hitting one. He was pissed that a pump shotgun got 3 shots off faster than his semi auto shot gun.


Where did you hear that the unarmed principal "rushed " the shooter, I am thinking she rushed to the commotion, but we will never ever know the true story about that one. There is no denying the average person will try to hide or flee and very few if any will try to do anything. Now lets say she did rush the guy, don't you think if she had been armed we would not be burying all of those little kids ?

The larger problem is how we treat the mentally ill in this country. How we treat each other. How parents raise their kids. The lack of respect most kids have for each other, adults, and life in general...

I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.

I'm not saying I necessarily support a ban on these things, for the exact reasons you mention. But we need to have an honest conversation about the pros and cons that are based on facts and common sense.

Here you are dead wrong, because it was implied and meant to be that the people were armed as equally as any threat both foreign and domestic. If they only had pitch forks going up against musket we would all be kissing Elizabeths ass today, and have #^&#^&#^&#^&ty teeth to boot...

Google the battle of Athens

Exactly as the constitution intended, excellent find...

Kind of like the movie Walking Tall/...

Here you are dead wrong, because it was implied and meant to be that the people were armed as equally as any threat both foreign and domestic. If they only had pitch forks going up against musket we would all be kissing Elizabeths ass today, and have #^&#^&#^&#^&ty teeth to boot...

First, the one adult who was wounded and survived, said that the principal and psychologist were killed as they ran right at the shooter.

Second, you cannot say I am dead wrong because of your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I based my opinion on what the document actually says. You cannot possibly know what was "meant to be", we have been debating that for 200 years.

The larger problem is how we treat the mentally ill in this country. How we treat each other. How parents raise their kids. The lack of respect most kids have for each other, adults, and life in general...

AGREE 100%. Any impact of gun control is nothing compared to the impact of trying to find ways to teach our kids to have some empathy for their fellow man. You are absolutely, 100% dead-on, you nailed the larger problem correctly. Yet all I'm hearing from Washington is gun control.

Everyone watch this video and then give an honest answer to whether or not the politicians are wasting their time going after "assault weapons"


Assault Rifle vs. Sporting Rifle - YouTube (http://youtu.be/8C-CLsMRcA0)

Fear of Spoiling (http://www.alfiekohn.org/miscellaneous/spoiling.htm)

The thing that I argue with that video is that we all know an Ar-15 is not really a hunting riffle. What deer hunter needs more than 10 rounds to down a deer? I don't hunt, but I would think a skilled hunter would only need to have 3 bullets.

The true love for the AR-15 is its fun to shoot and people want one because other people have them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That being said.. I'm not for the banning of these weapons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

First, the one adult who was wounded and survived, said that the principal and psychologist were killed as they ran right at the shooter.

Second, you cannot say I am dead wrong because of your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I based my opinion on what the document actually says. You cannot possibly know what was "meant to be", we have been debating that for 200 years.
More than one state had opinions prior to the introduction of the amendments to the Constitution, and here in Vermont we had and have the right to bear arms for our own defense
Early Gun Rights Legislation: http://www.madisonbrigade.com/images/1pix.gif Eight of the original states enacted their own bills of rights prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution. The following states included an arms-rights provision in their state constitutions:
VIRGINIA
(June 12, 1776)
13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
DELAWARE
(September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.
PENNSYLVANIA
(September 28, 1776)
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
MARYLAND
(November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.
NORTH CAROLINA
(December 18, 1776)
XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
VERMONT
(July 8, 1777)
XV. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State …
MASSACHUSETTS
(October 25, 1780)
XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
(June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
In addition to these legislative enactments of bills or declarations of rights, there were numerous other proclamations being promulgated at the time. For example:
INSTRUCTIONS OF TOWN MEETING, PRESTON, CONNECTICUT
(November 26, 1787)
It is our ardent wish that an efficient government may be established over these states so constructed that the people may retain all liberties, privileges, and immunities usual and necessary for citizens of a free country and yet sufficient provision made for carrying into execution all the powers vested in government. We are willing to give up such share of our rights as to enable government to support, defend, preserve the rest. It is difficult to draw the line. All will agree that the people should retain so much power that if ever venality and corruption should prevail in our public councils and government should be perverted and not answer the end of the institution, viz., the well being of society and the good of the whole, in that case the people may resume their rights and put an end to the wantonness of power. In whatever government the people neglect to retain so much power in their hands as to be a check to their rulers, depravity and the love of power is so prevalent in the humane mind, even of the best of men, that tyranny and cruelty will inevitably take place."
MINORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION
(December 12, 1787)


That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public inquiry from individuals.
DEBATES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION
(February 6, 1788)
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
NEW HAMPSHIRE RATIFICATION CONVENTION
(June 21, 1788)
Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.
VIRGINIA CONVENTION
(June 27, 1788)
17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear to arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
NEW YORK CONVENTION
(July 7,1788)
That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.


NEW YORK CONVENTION
(July 26,1788)
That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION
(May 29, 1790)
XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

The thing that I argue with that video is that we all know an Ar-15 is not really a hunting riffle. What deer hunter needs more than 10 rounds to down a deer? I don't hunt, but I would think a skilled hunter would only need to have 3 bullets.

The true love for the AR-15 is its fun to shoot and people want one because other people have them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
New Englanders forget that deer, moose, bear and bird are not the only game in this country. I'll tell you one animal I'd want as many rounds available as possible for - wild boar.

Also, where in the Constitution are rights required to be justified by "need"? We live in a free society. If I want to go for a walk, I'm not required to express a need. If I want to drive 24 hours, fish the Florida beaches for a day and then drive home, I'm not required to express why I should be able to do that because of a "need".

No one *needs* alcohol, tobacco or fast food - yet all three of those are individually responsible for killing more people every year than firearms. Where's the outrage there? How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard.

JimInCT says he'd support a ban on magazines over 30 rounds if it meant saving the life of one child, yet I'd bet he enjoys a beer or glass of wine with dinner, maybe even the celebratory cigar at a wedding, and everyone has experienced "crap I'm running late but hungry. I'll just stop by McDonalds."

Nebe, I don't mean to single you out and I know you said you do not support a ban, but your comment is one made frequently by the gun control crowd.

As I've argued repeatedly, people that use wording like "common sense reform," "reasonable changes" and other fluffy phrases that do not have an actual meaning to them, make those statements because they do not have the numbers on their side. You can add the "well why do you need that" argument to the fluffy list as well.

Not a single person that has called for more gun control can actually support what changes would take place with those controls in effect. We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns" and magazines that hold greater than 10 rounds. However, there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time.

All I'm saying is its a joke to me when I hear people say they need these guns for hunting. No you don't. People want these guns because they think they are cool and because other people have them. If I was a New England deer hunter and I saw someone hunting with an AR-15, I would laugh at them just as hard as the noobs I see with van stalls and zee bass reels who never wade past their ankles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All I'm saying is its a joke to me when I hear people say they need these guns for hunting. No you don't. People want these guns because they think they are cool and because other people have them. If I was a New England deer hunter and I saw someone hunting with an AR-15, I would laugh at them just as hard as the noobs I see with van stalls and zee bass reels who never wade past their ankles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

People buy them for protection.
It's a case of not being out gunned.
Hunting shouldn't and doesn't have a place in this argument . That's not the reason gun ownership was put into the Constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

People buy them for protection.
It's a case of not being out gunned.
Hunting shouldn't and doesn't have a place in this argument . That's not the reason gun ownership was put into the Constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm glad we agree
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

New Englanders forget that deer, moose, bear and bird are not the only game in this country. I'll tell you one animal I'd want as many rounds available as possible for - wild boar.

Also, where in the Constitution are rights required to be justified by "need"? We live in a free society. If I want to go for a walk, I'm not required to express a need. If I want to drive 24 hours, fish the Florida beaches for a day and then drive home, I'm not required to express why I should be able to do that because of a "need".

No one *needs* alcohol, tobacco or fast food - yet all three of those are individually responsible for killing more people every year than firearms. Where's the outrage there? How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard.

JimInCT says he'd support a ban on magazines over 30 rounds if it meant saving the life of one child, yet I'd bet he enjoys a beer or glass of wine with dinner, maybe even the celebratory cigar at a wedding, and everyone has experienced "crap I'm running late but hungry. I'll just stop by McDonalds."

Nebe, I don't mean to single you out and I know you said you do not support a ban, but your comment is one made frequently by the gun control crowd.

As I've argued repeatedly, people that use wording like "common sense reform," "reasonable changes" and other fluffy phrases that do not have an actual meaning to them, make those statements because they do not have the numbers on their side. You can add the "well why do you need that" argument to the fluffy list as well.

Not a single person that has called for more gun control can actually support what changes would take place with those controls in effect. We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns" and magazines that hold greater than 10 rounds. However, there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time.

"We live in a free society. If I want to go for a walk, I'm not required to express a need."

Come on, you can do better than that. You aren't likely to kill anyone going for a walk. If, however, you want to get you hands on something inherently dangerous (say dynamite for blasting, or anthrax for research), you absolutely have to show justifiable need. Most rational people are OK with those laws.

Are you saying you're an anarchist now?

"How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard. "

Correct. And we have all kinds of zoning laws you need to follow to put in a pool. You can't just do whatever you want.

Johnny, I'm not saying that sensible gun control is going to save millions and millions of lives. I said it would be likely to save a small number of lives. So pointing out that more people are killed in car accidents, isn't refuting my point, because I concede that. I would not want the government outlawing cars. Outlawing assault rifles with high-capacity magazines does not seem all that totalitarian to me. Almost everyone owns a car, and if we had to get rid of those cars, our lives would be turned upside down. I don't see the same intrusion with giving up high-capacity magazines. Our day-to-day lives don't depend on high-capacity magazines.

"We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns""

There were more than 900 exceptions, including the AR-15. In effect, there was no ban. It was so watered down, no one thought it would do anything.

"there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time"

That's because 99.99% of gun violence is one-on-one confrontations with a handgun. These random mass-murders are a totally different scenario, and as such, they need to be discussed seperately. JD, I'd bet every cent I have, against the spare change you have in your pocket, that the body count in Newtown would have been lower if that kid walked into that school with a handgun.

All other things being equal, you can kill more people with an AR-15 than you can with a handgun. I don't need data to convince me of that. I know it's true. Most of the cops I saw storming that school had rifles in their hands, not handguns. Why is that? JD, why is that?

I'm not saying we'll all live forever if we impose such a ban. I'm not even saying I support such a ban. I just think we need to have a serious conversation on the subject, one that is guided by common sense rather than radical ideology or outright jibberish.

I'll say again, any impact of gun legislation is going to be very minor. More good can be done by talking about re-instilling traditional family values, and by discussing the garbage that's on TV, in movies, and in video games.

People buy them for protection.
.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I doubt that. I'd bet every penny I have that most people (not all) buy them for the thrill. If I really thought I was in a situation where I was in so much danger that I couldn't defend myself with a handgun, I'd probably look at making some changes in my lifestyle.

It's pretty rare you need such a weapon for protection, isn't it? Rare, but not non-existant. If I was a white store-owner in LA during the Rodney King riots, I'd rather have an AR-15 with a high-capacity magazine than a handgun. And the reason I'd want the AR-15, is the same exact reason why I say (and can't believe people here are denying this) that a kook on a rampage will kill more kids with that weapon than with a handgun.

This is the conversation that should take place. Is the rare need for such a weopon for civilian protection, worth the price of more dead little kids when these rampages happen in schools?

I don't know the answer. But we can't have the conversation if folks won't admit these weapons will increase the body count.

Key word there is " kook"
It's not about the weapon
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not about the weapon
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then please enlighten me. If the weapon plays no role in the outcome, why did all those cops (who have standard issue handguns) run into that school with rifles? How come when I was with the USMC, I never once told my gyus to leave their rifles back at base and just bring handguns?

The kook is the biggest factor, you are correct. But please, tell me what's factually incorrect with the following sentence?

The more lethal the weapon, the more kids the kook can kill before the good guys get there.

How is that wrong?

Happy New Year to me.

Had no previous interest in purchasing a Glock. Wouldn't have purchased it, if I didn't feel it was about to be outlawed.

There were 30 people buying guns with 8 people behind the counter.

Joining Old Colony Sportmans association on Sunday.

http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab110/amar1293/20121218_172418.jpg

tell me what's factually incorrect with the following sentence?[/B]

The more lethal the weapon, the more kids the kook can kill before the good guys get there.

How is that wrong?

Think suicide bomber . Your right this kook chose an assault style rifle but your premise that less kids would have died if he didn't illegally access this weapon is hypothetical
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

tell me what's factually incorrect with the following sentence?[/B]

The more lethal the weapon, the more kids the kook can kill before the good guys get there.

How is that wrong?

your premise that less kids would have died if he didn't illegally access this weapon is hypothetical
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So why did those cops storm the school with rifles instead of handguns?

Yes, I am hypothesizing. The fact that those cops entered the school with rifles instead of handguns, would seem to support my hypothesis. The cops did not know what they were facing. Yet just about every one of them chose a rifle instead of a pistol? Why?

If a rifle provides no tactical advantage over a handgun, why did they all have rifles?

So your arguing that in fact citizens need these weapons for defense against those that illegally aquire them ?
That's the NRA position also .
I'm saying without the rifle there is no telling how many might have died with the semi automatic hand guns he had also. Maybe more ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So your arguing that in fact citizens need these weapons for defense against those that illegally aquire them ?
That's the NRA position also .
I'm saying without the rifle there is no telling how many might have died with the semi automatic hand guns he had also. Maybe more ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"So your arguing that in fact citizens need these weapons for defense against those that illegally aquire them ?
That's the NRA position also "

Right. That's also your position, at least that's what you posted before. I concede that in extremely rare situations, citizens might need these weapons for protection. We agree on that. I don't agree that it's common for citizens to need such a weapon, but I wouldn't say 'never' either.

Somehow, we disagree on the downside ogf these weapons, that in random mass murder killing sprees, these weapons will increase the body count compared to handguns. You seem to disagree that these weapons pose any greater danger than handguns, when in the hands of a would-be mass-murderer.

I asked this 3 times, and you seem to be dodging. Just in case you didn't see the question, I'll ask it yet again. If these rifles offer no tactical advantage over handguns, why did all the cops that stormed the school, who had no idea what they were facing, have rifles instead of their standard-issue handguns?

Please try to anser that question. My hypothesis, and I am certain that I'm correct, is that the cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, it's easier for them to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys.

"How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard. "

Correct. And we have all kinds of zoning laws you need to follow to put in a pool. You can't just do whatever you want.

Johnny, I'm not saying that sensible gun control is going to save millions and millions of lives. I said it would be likely to save a small number of lives. So pointing out that more people are killed in car accidents, isn't refuting my point, because I concede that. I would not want the government outlawing cars. Outlawing assault rifles with high-capacity magazines does not seem all that totalitarian to me. Almost everyone owns a car, and if we had to get rid of those cars, our lives would be turned upside down. I don't see the same intrusion with giving up high-capacity magazines. Our day-to-day lives don't depend on high-capacity magazines.
There's that word "sensible" again. I noticed there was a focus on swimming pools and not my mention of alcohol and tobacco. "Sensible" would be outlawing tobacco because of the hundreds of thousands that die due to long-term use - most of which that I know started when they were under 18 years old. Not to mention the immense financial burden on society for their medical care.

"Sensible" would be to outlaw alcohol because children get access to it and drink themselves to death. Or irresponsible adults get access to it, get behind the car and hit a mother driving her 3 children head on.

What's my point? If you're really that emotionally invested in "saving even one child", then you should be at the front lines for seeing alcohol go the same way as those "assault weapons" and politically-defined high-capacity magazines. Why are 100 events with 1 or 2 people dying each time of less importance than 1 instance where 20 people die?

"We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns""

There were more than 900 exceptions, including the AR-15. In effect, there was no ban. It was so watered down, no one thought it would do anything.
With all due respect, I'm not sure you understand what an "assault weapon" actually is or the contents of the 1994 law, resulting in a significant amount of conjecture. First, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon by definition. The media and liberals have created a misconception that just because a firearm come in black or has a synthetic stock, that it is a "military-style weapon". You are aware that the AR in "AR-15" stands for the original manufacturer "ArmaLite" not "assault rifle", right?

In drafting the original federal assault weapon ban, Diane Feinstein leveraged a made-up term and then stamped her own definition to it. The FAWB did rather clearly define how a rifle would be an assault weapon:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban)
The law wasn't a failure at curbing gun crime because it had exceptions, the law was a failure because politicians focused on the hopes of a quick fix. Which of those alleged "900 exceptions" contributed to a lack of decreased deaths due do long guns?

Like most policies pushed through Washington, there was no actual research supporting the bill. It was merely a Democratic legislature, along with Clinton, trying to draft gun control - and a few months later, voters had their heads.

"there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time"

That's because 99.99% of gun violence is one-on-one confrontations with a handgun. These random mass-murders are a totally different scenario, and as such, they need to be discussed seperately. JD, I'd bet every cent I have, against the spare change you have in your pocket, that the body count in Newtown would have been lower if that kid walked into that school with a handgun.

I read an excellent editorial posted on Forbes.com today that, with all due respect, would be perfect for someone like yourself - who supports a renewed AWB - should read.
'Assault Weapon' Is Just A PR Stunt Meant To Fool The Gullible - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/28/assault-weapon-is-just-a-pr-stunt-meant-to-fool-the-gullible/)

why did all the cops that stormed the school, who had no idea what they were facing, have rifles instead of their standard-issue handguns?[/B]

Please try to anser that question. My hypothesis, and I am certain that I'm correct, is that the cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, it's easier for them to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys.
The cops don't like to be out gunned either Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"So your arguing that in fact citizens need these weapons for defense against those that illegally aquire them ?
That's the NRA position also "

Right. That's also your position, at least that's what you posted before. I concede that in extremely rare situations, citizens might need these weapons for protection. We agree on that. I don't agree that it's common for citizens to need such a weapon, but I wouldn't say 'never' either.

So then, for extremely rare situations, citizens should be able to get a permit for these weapons? How does one prepare for extremely rare situations? How does one even know what those situations might be? Or when they will occur? If a white store owner in L.A. during the Rodney King riots would have been justified to own these weapons, would he also have been justified before the riots? Wouldn't it have been too late to wait for the riots to happen? Would the black store owners also have been justified to own them? How about the truck driver that was hauled out of his truck and nearly beaten to death? Would he have been justified in owning one? How about all the other residents in L.A.? Would they have been justified to own them? Would they only be justified in the actual event of a riot? wouldn't it be too late to wait for a riot to happen before applying for a permit?

Somehow, we disagree on the downside ogf these weapons, that in random mass murder killing sprees, these weapons will increase the body count compared to handguns. You seem to disagree that these weapons pose any greater danger than handguns, when in the hands of a would-be mass-murderer.

My hypothesis, and I am certain that I'm correct, is that the cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, it's easier for them to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys.

I don't think buckman or anybody else disagrees that high capacity weapons can increase the body count compared to lower capacity handguns. There might be a disagreement that they pose a greater danger. All guns pose the danger of being used to kill. Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count. I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids. Hey Jim, congrats, you're kid was not shot. I feel good for you." On the other hand, parents of kids who weren't shot might well be grateful. But the danger that they could have been the ones killed was there, by hand gun or rifle.

Your hypothesis is that cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, [not just extremely rare ones] it's easier to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And that if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys. But then, as I believe buckman implied, that it would also hold true for civilians defending themselves against bad guys. Why would we allow police to defend with rifles but not allow civilians to do so? Aren't civilians killed in far greater numbers than police?

It would seem that if the number of kids killed in rare instances is enough to ban high capacity weapons, that there is an even greater need to ban hand guns which are used to kill, on an almost daily basis, many more people, including children.

You keep wanting to have a "serious conversation" on the subject, as if such conversations have not occurred. If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. Which guns would be allowed under that number?

The cops don't like to be out gunned either Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hold on! You have repeatedly denied that rifles are going to result in more deaths than handguns. Therefore, you are denying a tactical advantage to using rifles. In that case, why would the cops be "out-gunned" with pistols?

You can't have it both ways. Which is it?

There's that word "sensible" again. I noticed there was a focus on swimming pools and not my mention of alcohol and tobacco. "Sensible" would be outlawing tobacco because of the hundreds of thousands that die due to long-term use - most of which that I know started when they were under 18 years old. Not to mention the immense financial burden on society for their medical care.

"Sensible" would be to outlaw alcohol because children get access to it and drink themselves to death. Or irresponsible adults get access to it, get behind the car and hit a mother driving her 3 children head on.

What's my point? If you're really that emotionally invested in "saving even one child", then you should be at the front lines for seeing alcohol go the same way as those "assault weapons" and politically-defined high-capacity magazines. Why are 100 events with 1 or 2 people dying each time of less importance than 1 instance where 20 people die?


With all due respect, I'm not sure you understand what an "assault weapon" actually is or the contents of the 1994 law, resulting in a significant amount of conjecture. First, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon by definition. The media and liberals have created a misconception that just because a firearm come in black or has a synthetic stock, that it is a "military-style weapon". You are aware that the AR in "AR-15" stands for the original manufacturer "ArmaLite" not "assault rifle", right?

In drafting the original federal assault weapon ban, Diane Feinstein leveraged a made-up term and then stamped her own definition to it. The FAWB did rather clearly define how a rifle would be an assault weapon:
Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban)
The law wasn't a failure at curbing gun crime because it had exceptions, the law was a failure because politicians focused on the hopes of a quick fix. Which of those alleged "900 exceptions" contributed to a lack of decreased deaths due do long guns?

Like most policies pushed through Washington, there was no actual research supporting the bill. It was merely a Democratic legislature, along with Clinton, trying to draft gun control - and a few months later, voters had their heads.


I read an excellent editorial posted on Forbes.com today that, with all due respect, would be perfect for someone like yourself - who supports a renewed AWB - should read.
'Assault Weapon' Is Just A PR Stunt Meant To Fool The Gullible - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/28/assault-weapon-is-just-a-pr-stunt-meant-to-fool-the-gullible/)

"I noticed there was a focus on swimming pools and not my mention of alcohol and tobacco"

Fine, let's talk about alcohol and tobacco all you like, because it plays into my argument, not yours. Just like with pools, there are all kinds of restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use that are designed to promote public safety. Is this news to you? Age restrictions, can't drink and drive, bars are required not to give you too much, can't smoke in public places where you can harm others...Notice a pattern here? These are all examples of society putting limits on our freedoms, in the interest of public safety. That's what I'm talking about here.

""Sensible" would be outlawing tobacco because of the hundreds of thousands that die due to long-term use "

Maybe, maybe not. Currently, as a society, we have collectively decided that the freedom to choose to smoke is more important than the lives that would be saved if we banned smoking. What I'm saying is, we should have that discussion with these weapons, without caving in to radical ideology or NRA lobbying pressure. Let's have a common sense discussion of the pros and cons. I agree thare are cons to banning anything. What I'm stunned by, is the resistance to the notion that there are potential pros to banning these things.

" If you're really that emotionally invested in "saving even one child", then you should be at the front lines for seeing alcohol go the same way as those "assault weapons"

Perhaps you're not reading well lately. Because I have said multiple times on this thread that we can't use public safety as an excuse to trample the constitution. I don't see anything in the constitution about what 'types' of arms we are entitled to bear. Do you?

I know the AR-15 isn't categorized as an assault weapon. What I'm saying is, we should look to see if there are things that serve no legitimate societal need (like, maybe, high capacity magazines) which if banned, might save a few lives.

"Why are 100 events with 1 or 2 people dying each time of less importance than 1 instance where 20 people die?"

I would not support unconstitutional bans to save 100 lives. I might support constitutional bans that save 1 or 2 lives. I can only assume that you can't differentiate between those two things, because you keep trying to refute me by citing inane hypotheticals that would be broadly perceived as trampling the constitution.

If you want to refute me, explain why banning high capacity magazines is in violation of the second amendment.

I never said banning these weapons would save more lives than any other possible bans of other actions or products. I never said banning these weapons would allow all of us to live forever. I have repeatedly said that the impact would be minimal. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

Show me how it's blatantly unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We have collectively decided that banning machine guns and mortars is not a violation of that clause. I feel one could make a compelling case that banning things like high-capacity magazines (or anything else designed for military capacity, not civilian use) is similar.

I agree that banning rifles that look scary, but in fact operate exactly like a small-game hunting rifle, is not accomplishing much. I'm talking about banning things that are significantly more lethal, yet which serve no significant need except to make guys with small wee-wees feel macho enough.

The type of ban I'm talking about might not have had any impact to the Newtown tragedy. But it might help mitigate the next one.

I don't think buckman or anybody else disagrees that high capacity weapons can increase the body count compared to lower capacity handguns. There might be a disagreement that they pose a greater danger. All guns pose the danger of being used to kill. Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count. I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids. Hey Jim, congrats, you're kid was not shot. I feel good for you." On the other hand, parents of kids who weren't shot might well be grateful. But the danger that they could have been the ones killed was there, by hand gun or rifle.

Your hypothesis is that cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, [not just extremely rare ones] it's easier to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And that if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys. But then, as I believe buckman implied, that it would also hold true for civilians defending themselves against bad guys. Why would we allow police to defend with rifles but not allow civilians to do so? Aren't civilians killed in far greater numbers than police?

It would seem that if the number of kids killed in rare instances is enough to ban high capacity weapons, that there is an even greater need to ban hand guns which are used to kill, on an almost daily basis, many more people, including children.

You keep wanting to have a "serious conversation" on the subject, as if such conversations have not occurred. If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. Which guns would be allowed under that number?

"I don't think buckman or anybody else disagrees that high capacity weapons can increase the body count compared to lower capacity handguns"

ThenI can only assume you aren't reading his responses.

"If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. "

Wrong. You need to read what I'm actually saying. It isn't only about reducing deaths. It's about reducing deaths in accordance with our constitution. That's a big difference. I'm not saying that any ban that reduces deaths is good. I'm saying that if it's not trampling the constitution, let's talk about it.

Automatic machine guns are banned. That ban has been deemed constitutional. What's so crazy about extending that ban to, say, high capacity magazines?

"Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count."

If it increases the potential body count, it certainly increases the danger to society as a whole. I'm shocked you'd miss that.

"I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids"

Why, then, are families of victims so often leading the charge to ban military-style weapons? If what you say is correct (that they don't care about any other kids), and their kid is already dead, why should they give a rat's azz. Wow. You're saying that parents who lost their kids, have zero vested interest in making sure it doesn't happen to someone else's kid. That's one of the stranger things I have seen you post. I could not disagree more.

I survived a war. Using your logic, I have no reason to be concerned about what happens when other teenagers are sent into compat? I have no reasons to call for rules to help future soldiers? That's what you think?

Seems unbelievably self-centered to me.

It would seem that if the number of kids killed in rare instances is enough to ban high capacity weapons, that there is an even greater need to ban hand guns which are used to kill, on an almost daily basis, many more people, including children.
And finally somebody hits the nail on the head. The violence that has resulted from societal issues combined with the proliferation of hand guns is by far the much more serious problem. Some argue it's a racial issue that's ignored because the majority of victims and perps are black.

Incidents of mass shootings tend to involve mental health issues combined with assault weapons if not hand guns. I don't see how anyone can refute Jim's point that an assault weapon as defined under the 1994 law isn't more deadly. They don't just "look scary" their characteristics were designed with a specific purpose. Perhaps it's the line drawn in the sand that's the issue. Is it arbitrary? Does that really make a difference?

Jim made a number of good points in the post above. The most important being, why can't there be a rational discussion on the subject that doesn't fall back on an absolute belief that's fuzzy at best?

I'm certainly not for banning all guns and have no problem with responsible hand gun owners, but the stats on gun violence in our country put us alongside a list of unsavory nations. More guns isn't the answer, there's a huge difference between a concealed carry for personal protection (when justified) and vigilante justice.

As an aside, The Specialist's story about the three load limit for duck hunting was ironic as it was citing a federal law that restricts the use of firearms :hihi:

-spence

Show me how it's blatantly unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We have collectively decided that banning machine guns and mortars is not a violation of that clause. I feel one could make a compelling case that banning things like high-capacity magazines (or anything else designed for military capacity, not civilian use) is similar.
First off, I never said anything about banning machine guns and mortars not being a violation. You've made the statement more than once now that automatic weapons are banned. However, your statements are repeated incorrect, which demonstrates you're either operating under assumptions or are misinformed. Fill out a Form 4, pay your $200 tax to the ATF and shell out $20k and many people could own a machine gun or grenades in a couple months.

Don't believe me, here's a select-fire M16A1 with full-auto capability, legally transferable and available today: Colt M16a1 US prop marked Transferable ! : Machine Guns at GunBroker.com (http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=322719566)

Second, I never stated there are not potential pros to certain bans. What I have stated is that any ban is unacceptable - just as another ban on alcohol would be unacceptable. A ban does not do anything to keep these things out of the hands of criminals, it merely limits the access to law-abiding citizens. How did the "Gun Free Zone" work out at Sandy Hook? That was the law and it did nothing. How about the fact that both Connecticut and New Jersey have active assault weapon bans - how well did that prevent the crime? How well are drug laws doing at preventing drug addiction? I could go on for pages and pages.

When has a sweeping federal ban on citizens ever worked?

You keep saying that people are refusing to have a conversation about what society wants. What do you think the last 3+ pages of posts have been about?

I don't see anything in the constitution about what 'types' of arms we are entitled to bear. Do you?

Jim, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the Federal Government can choose which types of arms you can bear. It prohibits that government from denying you the right to bear "arms" not which type of arms. The Constitution is basically, as Obama likes to say, a charter of negative liberties. It denies the Federal Government, and to some extent even state governments, all liberties except those specifically granted to it. If it does not grant the gvt. freedom to legislate on a matter, the gvt. cannot do so. There are no provisions in the Constitution, neither in the defined powers granted to the central government, nor in the enumerations within those powers to violate your right to bear arms. Of course, the Constitution has, as you say, been trampled, so what the heck, keep on trampling.

We have collectively decided that banning machine guns and . . .

Collectively banning rather than doing so by ammendment is the type of danger that the Constitution attempted to avert. Collective banning of constitutional rights is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Collective rule rather than the rule of law is the reason the Founders chose a republic rather than a democracy.

Jim, I understand very well your objections to private ownership of certain weapons. But, even though you have not given any credence to it, the expressed reason for the second ammendment was none of the things you cite. You are, apparently, reluctant to include that reason in what you consider a "serious discussion."

The thing that I argue with that video is that we all know an Ar-15 is not really a hunting riffle. What deer hunter needs more than 10 rounds to down a deer? I don't hunt, but I would think a skilled hunter would only need to have 3 bullets.

The true love for the AR-15 is its fun to shoot and people want one because other people have them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See this is what I mean, lack of knowledge. Just because the gun can accept different magazines doesn't mean that it cant be used for hunting. It is quite often used for predator control, and yes you can hunt deer with it in states where rifle hunting is legal. Again since you don't hunt deer you have no idea what you are talking about. Now Just so we are clear the 2nd amendment is not about hunting rifles. So please go educate yourself a little.

For 30 grand? I think you're missing the point.

Correction, I think you just made Jim's point!

-spence

Now Just so we are clear the 2nd amendment is not about hunting rifles.
I thought it was about the shooter and not the weapon. We've also established that any gun in the right hands is deadly.

So why should there be a difference?

-spence

Then please enlighten me. If the weapon plays no role in the outcome, why did all those cops (who have standard issue handguns) run into that school with rifles? How come when I was with the USMC, I never once told my gyus to leave their rifles back at base and just bring handguns?

The kook is the biggest factor, you are correct. But please, tell me what's factually incorrect with the following sentence?

The more lethal the weapon, the more kids the kook can kill before the good guys get there.

How is that wrong?

Since 9-11 and the LA bank heist most police departments have issued patrol rifles or carbines with homeland security money so that the cops are never outgunned again. That said if you were in your house and an armed intruder broke in, with say a shotgun, you would be more comfortable going up against him with a pistol? I know I would want a semi automatic carbine made for CQB, the best chance for myself and my family to survive. This is why they went into the school with "rifles" up against a "kook" armed with pistols.

Hold on! You have repeatedly denied that rifles are going to result in more deaths than handguns. Therefore, you are denying a tactical advantage to using rifles. In that case, why would the cops be "out-gunned" with pistols?

You can't have it both ways. Which is it?

You absolutely can in instances where one party is armed and the other is not, such as Newtown.

BTW the media falsely reported that he used the bushmaster, it was found in the trunk of the car, he used 4 handguns to kill 20 something people, now what do you say about that?


He killed all of them with handguns, and the medical examiner either has no idea what he is talking about, or has a bull#^&#^&#^&#^& political agenda

Gun Inconsistencies in Sandy Hook School Mass Shooting... - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de3lmAD5kXo)

BTW the media falsely reported that he used the bushmaster, it was found in the trunk of the car, he used 4 handguns to kill 20 something people, now what do you say about that?


He killed all of them with handguns, and the medical examiner either has no idea what he is talking about, or has a bull#^&#^&#^&#^& political agenda

Gun Inconsistencies in Sandy Hook School Mass Shooting... - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de3lmAD5kXo)
I've been trying to find anything aside from this video to confirm the claim. It's impossible to get any concrete info from media sources (I refuse to call them news outlets) that are constantly pushing an agenda. I, too, have heard that the Bushmaster was found in the car, but I have also heard it was a pump shotgun in the car, and he brought the Bushmaster and two pistols into the school.

On scene, it's quite easy to know the difference. Either they found .223 casings all over the place or they didn't. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a reliable source through Google.

And finally somebody hits the nail on the head. The violence that has resulted from societal issues combined with the proliferation of hand guns is by far the much more serious problem. Some argue it's a racial issue that's ignored because the majority of victims and perps are black.

Incidents of mass shootings tend to involve mental health issues combined with assault weapons if not hand guns. I don't see how anyone can refute Jim's point that an assault weapon as defined under the 1994 law isn't more deadly. They don't just "look scary" their characteristics were designed with a specific purpose. Perhaps it's the line drawn in the sand that's the issue. Is it arbitrary? Does that really make a difference?

Jim made a number of good points in the post above. The most important being, why can't there be a rational discussion on the subject that doesn't fall back on an absolute belief that's fuzzy at best?

I'm certainly not for banning all guns and have no problem with responsible hand gun owners, but the stats on gun violence in our country put us alongside a list of unsavory nations. More guns isn't the answer, there's a huge difference between a concealed carry for personal protection (when justified) and vigilante justice.

As an aside, The Specialist's story about the three load limit for duck hunting was ironic as it was citing a federal law that restricts the use of firearms :hihi:

-spence

Ok schools is in:

Here in lies the problem, in the south, for the most part you can buy a gun, any handgun with a drivers license. So some people buy a bunch and remove the serial numbers, then they come up to NY, Boston, Hartford< Chicago and such under the guise of visiting relatives, only to hook up with their "Homies" and sell the guns illegally. I see it all of the time. This is what is called a straw buyer, now knowing this how would you fix it. An AWB will do nothing.

This is how I would handle it:

Force all states to require a permitting system for the purchase of all firearms.

Require background checks, and safety courses to all who apply

Require that all sales have an instant background check.

Require all private sales to be done at a gun shop, so that an FA 10 form and background check are done first.

Track all large purchaser of firearms, IE some buys 3-10 guns a month or a week and they are not a dealer, then maybe a spot inspection at their residence to rquire that they produce all of the firearms.

Any state that refuses loses all highway safety funding, and public roadway funding until it is implemented.

Now you will have eliminated a large chunk of illegal guns.

I've been trying to find anything aside from this video to confirm the claim. It's impossible to get any concrete info from media sources (I refuse to call them news outlets) that are constantly pushing an agenda. I, too, have heard that the Bushmaster was found in the car, but I have also heard it was a pump shotgun in the car, and he brought the Bushmaster and two pistols into the school.

On scene, it's quite easy to know the difference. Either they found .223 casings all over the place or they didn't. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a reliable source through Google.

I wonder why ? NBC is not exactly a gun loving station like say Fox news, and I have been searching for it too. I think the Newtown chief is waiting for the entire investigation to be complete before he releases any details. This was leaked by the Feds supposedly. The medical examiner is a dope...

I thought it was about the shooter and not the weapon. We've also established that any gun in the right hands is deadly.

So why should there be a difference?

-spence

You see there is no difference, we want any gun we can have, just like you guys wan your 900 VanStaal reels :D

I'd agree, and perhaps even require ballistics with weapons registrations. You could also require reregistration after 3-5 years.

Unfortunately, none of this is permitted under the Constitution.

-spence

You see there is no difference, we want any gun we can have, just like you guys wan your 900 VanStaal reels :D
I only have one Van Staal. Good thing you didn't ask about English handmade shoes :devil2:

This Christmas I gifted myself a nice SOG tactical knife. Opens and closes as fast as a switch blade. I didn't even realize it when I bought it that it's illegal to carry in RI due to the size.

Oh well, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

-spence

I'd agree, and perhaps even require ballistics with weapons registrations. You could also require reregistration after 3-5 years.

Unfortunately, none of this is permitted under the Constitution.

-spence

In Massachusetts every gun you own is on a list at the Department of public safety. Ballistic databases won't work because there are too many variables....


New National Database Of Ballistic Markings From Guns Not Recommended (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080305105118.htm)

Lawbreaker......
:rotf2:

I only have one Van Staal. Good thing you didn't ask about English handmade shoes :devil2:

This Christmas I gifted myself a nice SOG tactical knife. Opens and closes as fast as a switch blade. I didn't even realize it when I bought it that it's illegal to carry in RI due to the size.

Oh well, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

-spence

"If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. "

Wrong. You need to read what I'm actually saying. It isn't only about reducing deaths. It's about reducing deaths in accordance with our constitution. That's a big difference. I'm not saying that any ban that reduces deaths is good. I'm saying that if it's not trampling the constitution, let's talk about it.

Sure, let's talk about it. But first, we have to establish which Constitution you're talking about. The original one, or the "living, breathing one" that has replaced it. I don't particularly like the new one, so I don't refer to it when I refer to the Constitution. If you prefer the "living breathing" one, then you are absolutely correct. The Federal Government, according to the "living" Constitution can, in reality, do whatever it wants. And all your logic about reducing deaths according to that Constitution can pretty much remove all "arms" from the people.

Automatic machine guns are banned. That ban has been deemed constitutional. What's so crazy about extending that ban to, say, high capacity magazines?

According to the "living breathing" Constitution, there is no problem extending the ban to all magazines and the guns that use them. The modern, progressive, jurists and politicians just don't see a "need" for any part of the second amendment since they don't see themselves or the government as a threat to the people. The British are no longer a threat, history has arrived at a time of universal understanding of human rights and social justice. Government need not be impeded from doing everything to efficiently administer society's needs including its safety. So there is no real "need" for civil ownership of guns.

"Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count."

If it increases the potential body count, it certainly increases the danger to society as a whole. I'm shocked you'd miss that.

I didn't miss the danger inherent in guns. The danger I speak of is qualitative. The quality of one death is not diminished by that of a hundred. It holds all the personal tragedy in one soul that is contained in the collective tragedy of a hundred. The danger you speak of is quantitative. The greater the number the greater the danger. For you, apparently, numbers are more important. If so, than you seem to miss that the vast number of gun related deaths are commited with the type of gun you deem less dangerous.

"I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids"

Why, then, are families of victims so often leading the charge to ban military-style weapons? If what you say is correct (that they don't care about any other kids), and their kid is already dead, why should they give a rat's azz. Wow. You're saying that parents who lost their kids, have zero vested interest in making sure it doesn't happen to someone else's kid. That's one of the stranger things I have seen you post. I could not disagree more.

Then you disagree with your version of what I said. You do have that habit of exaggeration. But I understand where you're coming from so I don't fault you on that. I didn't say they don't care about other kids. I was referring to your version of "danger" and the personal danger perceived by those involved in mass shootings. It's not that they don't care about other kids, it's that the overwhelming fear is first for their own. The personal, single grief, if their child was lost, and the single relief if they survived. Sure, there is room for concern for others, but, unless I'm weirder than I thought, that doesn't equal, for most people, concern for their own. Do you think that parents are less concerned with the danger of a kook with a handgun roaming the halls of their children's schools than they are with a kook with a high capacity weapon. Do you think they feel safer with him carrying one type of gun than another?

I survived a war. Using your logic, I have no reason to be concerned about what happens when other teenagers are sent into compat? I have no reasons to call for rules to help future soldiers? That's what you think?

Seems unbelievably self-centered to me.

No, you don't use my logic or the Constitution that I prefer. And, I can understand how soldiers view body counts as being crucial to winning, and by winning, how lives can be "saved." And I don't mean to say even a single death is emotionally acceptable on the battlefield.

Lawbreaker......
:rotf2:

Only if I decide to carry it. Legal to own :jump1:

-spence

I'd agree, and perhaps even require ballistics with weapons registrations. You could also require reregistration after 3-5 years.

Unfortunately, none of this is permitted under the Constitution.

-spence

How does the Constitution stop states from such regulations?

How does the Constitution stop states from such regulations?

I believe in reading his post he a) made a statement of why lax or inconsistent state laws are a big part of the hand gun problem in cities and b) how a Federal law could help remedy.

-spence

I believe in reading his post he a) made a statement of why lax or inconsistent state laws are a big part of the hand gun problem in cities and b) how a Federal law could help remedy.

-spence

The Constitution does not require the states to be lax, nor does it stop them from having similar regulations. The problem with Federal laws solving state problems is that it makes states irrelevant. It tends to destroy the whole concept of federalism and of a republic. It constantly encroaches on constitutionalism (all of the above which I assume is OK with you?). And the problem with Federally mandated uniformity as a one-size-fits-all solution is the destruction also of the states as laboratories of experiment. Some may come up with better solutions to a problem than others, and the rest may adapt the solution or even improve on it. When the Federal Government regulates, its solution has no competition and becomes far more frozen in time.

The Constitution does not require the states to be lax, nor does it stop them from having similar regulations. The problem with Federal laws solving state problems is that it makes states irrelevant. It tends to destroy the whole concept of federalism and of a republic. It constantly encroaches on constitutionalism (all of the above which I assume is OK with you?). And the problem with Federally mandated uniformity as a one-size-fits-all solution is the destruction also of the states as laboratories of experiment. Some may come up with better solutions to a problem than others, and the rest may adapt the solution or even improve on it. When the Federal Government regulates, its solution has no competition and becomes far more frozen in time.
If someone buys a large number of hand guns down south to then sell them illegally in a more lucrative market up north how is this an isolated "state" problem?

Not even sure it's a Second Amendment issue any more.

-spence

If someone buys a large number of hand guns down south to then sell them illegally in a more lucrative market up north how is this an isolated "state" problem?

Not even sure it's a Second Amendment issue any more.

-spence

No it is not a Second Amendment issue. What I was questioning is your comment that none of this was permitted by the Constitution.

Hold on! You have repeatedly denied that rifles are going to result in more deaths than handguns. Therefore, you are denying a tactical advantage to using rifles. In that case, why would the cops be "out-gunned" with pistols?

You can't have it both ways. Which is it?

I'm sure this is been answered already Jim and you know the answer.
Rifles are a better weapon at longer ranges
Hand guns are a close proximity weapon
Cops entering a building to engage a man with a weapon don't intend to shoot him from close proximity .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I found this to be a pretty interesting read...
America has an As#$%@ Problem (http://www.nyfirearms.com/blog/2012/12/america-has-an-#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&-problem/)

Cops entering a building to engage a man with a weapon don't intend to shoot him from close proximity .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really?

JimCT...
what weapon did you guys carry when clearing rooms/buildings during your tours? I assume that was quite often close quarters...

interesting thread so far and some good points made. Its intersting given that I live in gun heaven. I find myself going through the bass pro and cabelas adds drooling over all kinds of combat style rifles for the very reason Nebe highlights, they're cool and I would love to mess around with them. I've never owned a gun and dont trust having one in the house. I was in cabelas last week and they have a specialty room with high value weapons, they had this sick looking rifle, very modern looking. I asked and its a 50 cal. rifle, military use them for sniper rifles and the guy said each bullet is $7 a shot to fire! Crazy but very cool. I can understand both sides to this argument. I dont see how banning high capacity magazines would be an issue, i think thats a good thing.
For the newtown shootings I have repeatadly read that he had 2 pistols and an AR. In the car was a shotgun. The amount of rounds he fired (11 in one baby) would be a challenge with 2 pistols. I am pretty certain of this.

Really?

JimCT...
what weapon did you guys carry when clearing rooms/buildings during your tours? I assume that was quite often close quarters...

I guess I should have stated that a rifle would be better in multiple situations where a hand gun is not .
And don't forget the intimidation factor... They look scary
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I found this to be a pretty interesting read...
America has an As#$%@ Problem (http://www.nyfirearms.com/blog/2012/12/america-has-an-#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&-problem/)

Good article. Maybe a bit too rational to be included in "serious" or "reasonable" discussion.

This Christmas I gifted myself a nice SOG tactical knife. Opens and closes as fast as a switch blade. I didn't even realize it when I bought it that it's illegal to carry in RI due to the size.

-spence

Oh great...just what America needs...another nutjob with an Assault Knife....what are you going to do with that thing?...open oysters?.....throw it at trees and squirrels in your backyard and try to get the right end to stick in?.......next Christmas you might ask Santa for a Ninja outfit and a pair of Nunchucks to complete the ensemble :)

The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right to keep and bar arms does not in any manner depend on the 2nd Amendment for its existence. The reason why the citizen possesses the right to arms is because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. It is a pre-existing, fully retained, fundamental right and as such, any law challenged as being a violation of the right is presumed unconstitutional.

We have collectively decided that banning machine guns and mortars is not a violation of that clause.

You shouldn't be so cock-sure . . . Many, many, many laws stand now as "presumptively lawful" as they have not yet been challenged under Heller (2008). For 70 years laws were upheld using the lower federal court "militia right" or "state's right" or generic "collective right" inventions / mutations / perversions that were invalidated by the Supreme Court in Heller.

Also, many also were upheld pre-McDonald (2010) because it was held that the federal 2nd Amendment did not impede state legislatures (also a legal doctrine now invalidated).


I feel one could make a compelling case that banning things like high-capacity magazines (or anything else designed for military capacity, not civilian use) is similar.

Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual' arms. But . . . government does not get to begin its action presuming the arm is "dangerous and unusual" because it doesn't think the citizens have any good reason to own it, or it isn't used in hunting (i.e., the present idiotic "Assault Weapons" ban hoopla).

The Supreme Court in 1939 established the criteria for courts (and presumably legislatures :smash:) to determine if an arm is afforded 2nd Amendment protection.

If the type of arm meets any one of them then it cannot be deemed 'dangerous and unusual' and the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and any authority claimed by government to restrict its possession and use is repelled.

Those criteria state that to be protected by the 2nd Amendment the arm must be:

A type in common use at the present time and/or
A type usually employed in civilized warfare / that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or
A type that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.


Failing ALL those tests, the arm could then and only then be argued to be "dangerous and unusual" and the government would be permitted to argue that a legitimate power to restrict that type of arm should be afforded .

"Dangerous and Unusual" is what's left after the protection criteria are all applied and all fail . . . Think of it as legal Scrapple . . .

I agree that banning rifles that look scary, but in fact operate exactly like a small-game hunting rifle, is not accomplishing much.

That seems to be much more than Feinstein and Biden are willing to stipulate. Thanks a lot . . .

I'm talking about banning things that are significantly more lethal, yet which serve no significant need except to make guys with small wee-wees feel macho enough.

Well, if anything really speaks to a mature and reasoned discussion it is ^that^.

The type of ban I'm talking about might not have had any impact to the Newtown tragedy. But it might help mitigate the next one.

You "might" want to learn about fundamental rights and strict scrutiny. You "might" learn that "might" isn't part of the mix. . . .

Automatic machine guns are banned. That ban has been deemed constitutional.

Actually they are not banned. Congress knew in 1934 that it had zero power to ban any arms, especially those that were of the type that constituted the ordinary military equipment.

The widely interpreted power to tax afforded a wider range of powers to restrict possession of full auto machine guns, sawed-off shotguns etc by requiring a Treasury tax stamp to be affixed to the weapon to prove a transfer tax had been paid. Hundreds of thousands of Title II arms are in private hands that run the gamut from little 9mm sub-machine guns to 20mm Vulcan MiniGuns.

What's so crazy about extending that ban to, say, high capacity magazines?

I've read legal arguments on both sides; I haven't read a compelling one that argues for banning.

Emotional arguments are everywhere one turns but are rarely of any value when discussing important issues especially issues of legally enforced public policy. That goes triple when the policy being advocated demands either the ignoring or purposeful violation of fundamental, constitutionally enforced rights.

Why does someone need to have a Vulcan mini gun??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why does someone need to have a Vulcan mini gun??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, it just shows the absurdity of the entire argument. Yes, you can get a full auto weapon with the proper permitting and background checks, but the process has made them so expensive, difficult to get and worse -- traceable -- they rarely if ever are actually used in crimes.

I'd think it's a safe wager that if I was a violent criminal I'd much rather have some serious firepower at my disposal. Why aren't they used more? Perhaps because they are so hard to get.

-spence

Well, it just shows the absurdity of the entire argument. Yes, you can get a full auto weapon with the proper permitting and background checks, but the process has made them so expensive, difficult to get and worse -- traceable -- they rarely if ever are actually used in crimes.

I'd think it's a safe wager that if I was a violent criminal I'd much rather have some serious firepower at my disposal. Why aren't they used more? Perhaps because they are so hard to get.

-spence

Isn't it much easier for criminals to get "serious firepower" than it is for law abiders?

And does "absurdity of the entire argument" include the reason for the Second Ammendment in that "entire" argument? Or does the "entire" argument only include the "why do they need" the stuff for hunting, sport, and personal protection argument?

I'd like Reelin Rod to answer my question. Why does someone need to have a Vulcan Minigun???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd like Reelin Rod to answer my question. Why does someone need to have a Vulcan Minigun???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How else would you be able to defend against invading Vulcans? Oh, that's right, the Vulcans were pacifistic and wouldn't invade. Besides, they liked humans. Ok, so Reelin Rod may have to answer the question.

I'd like Reelin Rod to answer my question. Why does someone need to have a Vulcan Minigun???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
For the same reason guys need long distance fishing rods, fast retrieve reels, wetsuits for fishing or skishing, big boats, glass fish, etc. Cause they are cool, fun to play with and we can.
You are not trying to tell us it makes economic sense or is always socially acceptable to go fishing are you?

I'd like Reelin Rod to answer my question. Why does someone need to have a Vulcan Minigun???

I considered whether addressing Jim's "banned" statement was worth it, as any mention of the full compliment of the arms in private hands brings out the "need" question almost immediately.

But, even for those who own Title II arms, "need" isn't any part of following the process of registering an NFA weapon. Are you advocating a new standard to those already existing for Title II arms?

If we were to discuss the right to arms as secured under the 2nd Amendment (as I discussed in my first post) the only "need" discussion I would be willing to engage in is whether the government can constitutionally sustain any claim to "need" to control the personal arms of the private citizen.

I pretty much agree with the following . . .




"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." -- Justice Robert H. Jackson

I considered whether addressing Jim's "banned" statement was worth it, as any mention of the full compliment of the arms in private hands brings out the "need" question almost immediately.

But, even for those who own Title II arms, "need" isn't any part of following the process of registering an NFA weapon. Are you advocating a new standard to those already existing for Title II arms?

If we were to discuss the right to arms as secured under the 2nd Amendment (as I discussed in my first post) the only "need" discussion I would be willing to engage in is whether the government can constitutionally sustain any claim to "need" to control the personal arms of the private citizen.

I pretty much agree with the following . . .




"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." -- Justice Robert H. Jackson


So lets be clear. People do not need weapons like this. They WANT THEM. There's a difference you know.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The thing is.. I'm all for gun ownership. I just get very peeved when I listen to pro gun people rationalize their rights to gun ownership. We don't need to have any of these weapons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So lets be clear. People do not need weapons like this. They WANT THEM. There's a difference you know.


Weapons like what, a Minigun, semi-auto rifle, pistol, shotgun?

The thing is.. I'm all for gun ownership. I just get very peeved when I listen to pro gun people rationalize their rights to gun ownership. We don't need to have any of these weapons.

I'm not rationalizing anything.

I reject the entire "need" discussion out of hand (except for the aforementioned requirement of government to explain the premise constitutional support for any power claimed to impact the personal arms of the private citizen).

yes, I thought questioning someone's "wants and needs" had become passe' and even frowned upon.....

There's a good argument that a poor person actually needs a smart phone so that they have Internet access for looking for jobs, unemployment forms, etc. they can then not need a land line or a real computer.

I'm almost poor and that's what I have done at home.. No landline or hard wired Internet :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But that's for another thread.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's a good argument that a poor person actually needs a smart phone so that they have Internet access for looking for jobs, unemployment forms, etc. they can then not need a land line or a real computer.

I'm almost poor and that's what I have done at home.. No landline or hard wired Internet :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Library!!!!!! We pay for it, they can go there and use it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's a good argument that a poor person actually needs a smart phone so that they have Internet access for looking for jobs, unemployment forms, etc. they can then not need a land line or a real computer.

I'm almost poor and that's what I have done at home.. No landline or hard wired Internet :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We spend billions on libraries . They have Internet access. Wtf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The thing is.. I'm all for gun ownership. I just get very peeved when I listen to pro gun people rationalize their rights to gun ownership. We don't need to have any of these weapons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
A little history might help
A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved . . . Is it possible . . . that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-79)[80] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-providencefoundation1-80) Noah Webster similarly argued:
Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[80] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-providencefoundation1-80)[81] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-81) George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[80] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-providencefoundation1-80)[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-82)
The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[80] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-providencefoundation1-80)[83] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-83)
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-84)
While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46), he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."[80] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-providencefoundation1-80)[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-85)
By January of 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:
Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-86)Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )

There's a good argument that a poor person actually needs a smart phone so that they have Internet access for looking for jobs, unemployment forms, etc. they can then not need a land line or a real computer.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wonder how people ever got jobs before the internet and smart phones???? :)

A little history might help

Thanks for the history, I hadn't hear about the part with the king and all.

By this line of reasoning today then the general public should have unfettered access to all sorts of weaponry. I mean, if the real intent is to be able to repel the government, you're going to need a lot more firepower than an AR-15 with an extended magazine and folding stock.

-spence

Isn't it much easier for criminals to get "serious firepower" than it is for law abiders?
Not if the law abider decides commit a crime :)

And does "absurdity of the entire argument" include the reason for the Second Ammendment in that "entire" argument? Or does the "entire" argument only include the "why do they need" the stuff for hunting, sport, and personal protection argument?
The point was that restricting access can indeed have a big impact on how those weapons are used, even without banning them.

The needs for sporting purposes are fairly narrow and can be met easily under current law. The needs for defense of liberty are quite broad and aren't likely to be met under current law...or are they?

Perhaps the defenders of freedom are already quite well armed.

-spence

Oh great...just what America needs...another nutjob with an Assault Knife....what are you going to do with that thing?...open oysters?.....throw it at trees and squirrels in your backyard and try to get the right end to stick in?.......next Christmas you might ask Santa for a Ninja outfit and a pair of Nunchucks to complete the ensemble :)

Thanks for reminding me I could use a new oyster knife. I hate opening the things to be honest. The local stuff we get makes for good eating but the shells are a PITA.

-spence

I hate opening the things to be honest. -spence

I've noticed :)

I've noticed :)

Wow, what a zinger. :spam:

-spence

I'm just waiting for the next Million Man March..........................
I don't think our choice will be to burn down our neighborhoods.

By this line of reasoning today then the general public should have unfettered access to all sorts of weaponry.

The 2nd Amendment is not a provision mandating tactical equivalency. It only is intended to keep the original ratios of numerical superiority the framers embraced and recognized as "securing the free state".

The framers stated that in 1788 the largest standing army that could be maintained would, at most, amount to 1% of the total population. These government forces would be outnumbered ("opposed" was the word James Madison used (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm)) by "citizens with arms in their hands" by a ratio of 17 to 1.

In modern times that superiority has grown a bit, it now stands at 25 armed citizens to one soldier (2.9 million active duty and reserve military vs 75 million "citizens with arms in their hands" in a nation of 311 million "total souls".

While the framers did not envision every person being armed they certainly desired a significant percentage (at least 17-20% of the population) to be properly situated with small arms to effectively resist the government's standing army (1% of the population) with violence.

That ratio is the only condition they intended to preserve with the enactment of the 2nd Amendment, for that mass of armed, civic minded citizens would allow the civil authorities to form of a "well regulated militia" when necessary, mustering the farmers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers of the community.


I mean, if the real intent is to be able to repel the government, you're going to need a lot more firepower than an AR-15 with an extended magazine and folding stock.

At the height of the resistance, estimates of the number of Iraqi insurgents ranged between 8000-20,000 (US) up to 40,000 (Iraqi intelligence) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4268904.stm).With 160,000 troops in country our guys enjoyed at worst a 4 to 1 advantage and at best a 20 to 1 advantage. And in the opinion of many we were in a quagmire and losing bad.

Imagine if there were 2.8 million insurgents (Madison's 17-1 ratio) and many of them were very familiar with American heavy weapon platforms and endeavored to seize and offensively use those weapons instead of just blowing themselves up?

There's a good argument that a poor person actually needs a smart phone so that they have Internet access for looking for jobs, unemployment forms, etc.

I prefer they just charge up $6 lattes on their EBT cards at the Internet cafe like most other poor people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wonder how people ever got jobs before the internet and smart phones???? :)
They checked the newspaper. Then technology came along and well.. You know.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They checked the newspaper. Then technology came along and well.. You know.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they can still check the newspaper....the point that you started was about wants and needs...you don't "need" a smart phone to find a job, particularly if many aspects of your life(housing, food, electric, school meals, healthcare, childcare ...etc...etc...) are already being subsidized or provided by the government....having a car might get you to a job as well, but if you can't afford the basics in life you should walk, ride a bike or take public transportation (can't believe I have to explain this)........you don't "need" a 6 dollar latte at an internet cafe, you use your EBT card to purchase that latte because you feel that you are entitled to a latte at someone else's expense or you've just become so accustomed to living at someone else's expense that it doesn't even occur to you that someone else is paying for your latte...might a smart phone provide you access to employment information?.....sure...but based on that argument we can justify/construe all sorts of wants as needs while forgetting priorities simply because the wants in lieu of needs will make our lives a little easier....which is very much a reason why we are where we are....:) on the other hand, you may not need many of these weapons mentioned(or maybe you might at some point) but if you can pay for them and can meet the guidelines for ownership, you are entitled to them under the Constitution(at least for now)....not sure smartphones and lattes were mentioned in the Constitution...probably just behind the times....

listening to the radio in the car last night I heard a very salient point made that while simple, explained an awful lot...."we cant even agree on right and wrong in this country anymore"

you don't "need" a 6 dollar latte at an internet cafe, you use your EBT card to purchase that latte because you feel that you are entitled to a latte at someone else's expense or you've just become so accustomed to living at someone else's expense that it doesn't even occur to you that someone else is paying for your latte...

It was a Joke Scott...Geesh :rolleyes:

It was a Joke Scott...Geesh :rolleyes:

I got it....but it is symptomatic...wouldn't you say?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/poor_some_ugar_on_me_0Hq1d3iPnvj2RwpsEDS7MN
metaphor for steak and lobster at the checkout line at Market Basket courtesy of EBT ....I'd refer back to the better living through foodstamps commercials that the government was targeting various groups with and the explosion of foodstamp recipients...it's prevalent right through the income stratus but breeding dependency begins with the most likely dependent(s)....good humor is always reality based :uhuh: but the reality of that joke isn't so funny really ...I'd argue that the growth of the entitlement culture and bureaucracy and dissolving of our social framework coupled with the inability to distinguish between right and wrong, needs and wants, rights and entitlements will have a much more significant impact on our future than the argument over which guns and ammo to ban....but the argument for the next few months will be about guns apparently...priorities:)

I'd like Reelin Rod to answer my question. Why does someone need to have a Vulcan Minigun???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do you need to blow glass? Can't we get machine made stuff?
:rotf2:

My work isn't intended to kill people ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My work isn't intended to kill people ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can I get one of these :hee:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YBZ_GI_8JoA/T_tt9xXSO1I/AAAAAAAADwo/vr8UKRI9nZY/s1600/glass-weapon-3.jpg

Eben, who do you know that owns a Vulcan Minigun? I'm not sure that any of the violence that is being attributed to guns recently or for quite some time involved Vulcan Miniguns, if fact I couldn't find anything that suggest that they were being used to commit any crimes except in the Grand Theft Auto video game....if we ban Vulcan Miniguns and anything that resembles them and place many other bans and restrictions that we might dream up or that are currently being mentioned...please tell me how that would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter, or any of the other shooters for that matter or future shooters?

Virginia Tech..... "Cho used two firearms during the attacks: a .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun.[13] The shootings occurred in separate incidents, with the first at West Ambler Johnston Hall, during which Cho killed two pupils, and the second at Norris Hall, where the other 31 deaths, including that of Cho himself, as well as all the nonlethal injuries, occurred."


I'd just like to know exactly what is proposed as a solution and then how it is supposed to stop what occured to prompt the proposed action. There seems to be a disconnect. If you really believe that reducing the availability of certain guns and ammo and capacity is the solution then you really need to take it to it's logical conclusion and ban them all because there will still be sick people that will use whatever legal or illegal weapon of whatever capacity that is at their disposal to committ these crimes....

Can I get one of these :hee:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YBZ_GI_8JoA/T_tt9xXSO1I/AAAAAAAADwo/vr8UKRI9nZY/s1600/glass-weapon-3.jpg

That's pretty scary looking....ban it. Interesting enough a quick google found a frighteningly large number of glass related murders .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

First off, I never said anything about banning machine guns and mortars not being a violation. You've made the statement more than once now that automatic weapons are banned. However, your statements are repeated incorrect, which demonstrates you're either operating under assumptions or are misinformed. Fill out a Form 4, pay your $200 tax to the ATF and shell out $20k and many people could own a machine gun or grenades in a couple months.

Don't believe me, here's a select-fire M16A1 with full-auto capability, legally transferable and available today: Colt M16a1 US prop marked Transferable ! : Machine Guns at GunBroker.com (http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=322719566)

Second, I never stated there are not potential pros to certain bans. What I have stated is that any ban is unacceptable - just as another ban on alcohol would be unacceptable. A ban does not do anything to keep these things out of the hands of criminals, it merely limits the access to law-abiding citizens. How did the "Gun Free Zone" work out at Sandy Hook? That was the law and it did nothing. How about the fact that both Connecticut and New Jersey have active assault weapon bans - how well did that prevent the crime? How well are drug laws doing at preventing drug addiction? I could go on for pages and pages.

When has a sweeping federal ban on citizens ever worked?

You keep saying that people are refusing to have a conversation about what society wants. What do you think the last 3+ pages of posts have been about?

"A ban does not do anything to keep these things out of the hands of criminals, it merely limits the access to law-abiding citizens."

I disagree. If something is made illegal, not every single person who wishes they could get one illegally, would be able to get one. Obviously, I would never say that bans cannot be circumvented. But you seem to be saying the opposite, that bans cannot even reduce access to these weapons. I can't believe that's true.

"How did the "Gun Free Zone" work out at Sandy Hook?"

Not so well. Which is precisely why we need to have the conversation about whether or not things can be improved.

All I hear is extremes on this. Liberals seem to think that bans will put a stop to the deaths. You seem to be saying that bans won't stop a single person from getting their jands on what is banned.

I'm guessing the true answer is somewhere in between. If we get to that place, maybe (and maybe not) we can come up with policies that make our kids safer.

And you have me completely on the automatic weapons, I didn't think they were legal for civilians.

"What I have stated is that any ban is unacceptable "

Unacceptable to you. To me, if we can save a few lives and not trample the constitution, I say let's do it.

"When has a sweeping federal ban on citizens ever worked? "

Rarely. But your characterization of this as a "sweeping ban" is, in my opinion, inappropriate. 99% of Americans have zero interest in owning these things. Banning cars would be a "sweeping ban", because it would limit constitutional freedoms for just about everyone.

Jim if we taught gun safety in our schools It would save more lives then any ban would. Even if it saves one life it's worth a try....right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim if we taught gun safety in our schools It would save more lives then any ban would. Even if it saves one life it's worth a try....right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure we should preach gun safety. That will doubtlessly save lives. Did you really think I was going to disagree with that?

Another way to save lives, potentially, is to remove weapons of extraordinarily high lethality that serve no legitimate purpose other than to make insecure folks feel like Rambo for a little while.

Teaching gun safety could go a long way to reducing accidental gun deaths. But that's a different scenario than what happens when someone decides thet want to be remembered as a mass murderer, right?

In that scenario (random mass murder), it seems to me that the harder it is for the kook to get these weapons, the safer our children are. I'm stunned that there's almost universal resistance to that notion here.

Taken from the Net:

Maybe is a law abiding citizen nearby was armed a few of these could have been prevented.....................

Worst School Massacre in US history: Bath, Michigan School Massacre. 1927. Murder accomplished with explosives. 44 victims (equal to the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres combined).

Worst Domestic Terrorist Attack in US History: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing. 4/19/95. Murder accomplished with a rental truck full of fertilizer based explosives. 168 dead (including many children in an onsite day care).

Worst Foreign based Terrorist Attack in US History: September 11, 2001 attacks on NYC, PA, Pentagon. Murder accomplished with box cutters and commercial airliners. ~3,000 people dead.

Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”

Anti-police stabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.

Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.

18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.

Stabbing Spree kills 2, Tsuchiura, Japan: 3/23/2008. 2 killed, 7 wounded. Man “just wanted to kill anyone.”

Stabbing spree wounds 41, 6 seriously in Berlin Train Station: 5/26/2006. 41 wounded, 6 seriously. Thankfully no one died in this attack, but not for lack of trying on the part of the drunk 16 year old.

4 killed in stabbing spree in London, UK: 9/2004. 4 killed, 2 wounded. Mentally ill man attacks mostly older people.

6 killed over Xbox dispute in Deltona, Florida, US: 8/6/2004. 6 killed. 4 men (all old enough to legally purchase firearms) bludgeon 6 people to death with baseball bats over purloined Xbox.

Daegu subway fire, Daegu, South Korea: 2/18/2003. 198 killed, 147 injured. A 56 year old unemployed taxi driver, dissatisfied with his medical treatment, sets fire to a crowded train.

Osaka School Massacre, Osaka Japan: 6/8/2001. 8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 teachers wounded. Committed by 37 year old former janitor armed with a kitchen knife.

Sure we should preach gun safety. That will doubtlessly save lives. Did you really think I was going to disagree with that?

Another way to save lives, potentially, is to remove weapons of extraordinarily high lethality that serve no legitimate purpose other than to make insecure folks feel like Rambo for a little while.

Teaching gun safety could go a long way to reducing accidental gun deaths. But that's a different scenario than what happens when someone decides thet want to be remembered as a mass murderer, right?

In that scenario (random mass murder), it seems to me that the harder it is for the kook to get these weapons, the safer our children are. I'm stunned that there's almost universal resistance to that notion here.

The risistance is backed by fact. Banning might make you feel better but history shows that it will not work and I will argue might promote a black market that could result more deaths
Interestingly the NRA will teach gun safety in schools for free. Why are they not excepted with open arms?
Well......it's not really about saving kids life's .... Now is it ???
This isn't directed at you in particular ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From elsewhere on the net
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the #^&#^&#^&#^& act of 1902.
...
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

The risistance is backed by fact. Banning might make you feel better but history shows that it will not work and I will argue might promote a black market that could result more deaths
Interestingly the NRA will teach gun safety in schools for free. Why are they not excepted with open arms?
Well......it's not really about saving kids life's .... Now is it ???
This isn't directed at you in particular ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The risistance is backed by fact"

Funny that you didn't provide any of those facts which you claim support the resistance. As far as I know, there has never been an 'assault weapons ban' that had any teeth to it. The last one had 900 exceptions, so of course it accomplished nothing. Therefore, I can't see how there can be facts to dispute what I'm saying, because it hasn't been tried yet.

I agree 100% that banning guns entirely from places like Chicago and DC has made things worse. But that violence is typical street crime and domestic violence, not random mass murders. These random mass murders don't usually happen in urban areas. It's an entirely different problem than urban street crime. These random mass murders are a relatively new phenomenon. and cannot be lumped into more common acts of street crime.

"Interestingly the NRA will teach gun safety in schools for free. Why are they not excepted with open arms?"

For the same reason that I wouldn't welcome Planned Parenthood with open arms if they want to teach my kids how to use condoms. Many people (not me) are opposed to gun ownership, and showing that to kids in a public school undermines what the parents are trying to teach their kids. I'm not someone opposed to the NRA by the way. If my kids are interested in guns, I'll help teach them the right way. But I can see why someone would not want it in a public school.

"Well......it's not really about saving kids life's .... Now is it ??? "

I assume by your use of multiple question marks that you suppose that you 'got me' with something? I don't think so.

What people like me are proposing has never been tried as far as I know, therefore there can't be any data to refute it. You cannot counter my argument by saying that "broad gun bans don't reduce gun deaths as a whole", because these random mass murders are a very small percentage of gun deaths.

I agree 100% that broad gun bans didn't help places like Chicago or DC. That's not even remotely close to what I'm talking about.

It's easier to kill large numbers of people with 'assault weapons' (for lack of a better term) than it is with a handgun. Therefore, it seems reasonable that if we make it harder for would-be mass murderers to get these weapons, we might lower the future body count.

I'll say it again, any impact of gun control would be minimal at best. More lives can be saved if we talk about re-instilling better values, but the liberal wing of the Democratic party has no interest in that.

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, .

A great NRA bumper sticker, except it doesn't pass the common sense test. Assault weapons are a very, very small portion of the American firearms market. I'm saying that 99% of what's sold should still be legal.

So your story is actually incredibly incorrect. In fact, the reverse is true. No one is asking you to be left with just the crumbs. What people like me are suggesting is, you give up the crumbs, and keep the vast majority of that satisfying cake.

Not willing to give up the crumbs to maybe save the life of a little child?

For what it's worth, I laughed my azz off at the sound effects - NOM NOM NOM, I kept picturing Nancy Pelosi dressed as the Cookie Monster. That was a really funny post, I guess we just disagree on how intrusive it would be to eliminate a small percentage of the guns that really cater to a fringe element of our culture.

I loved shooting weapons in the USMC, I can't deny that it's an adrenaline rush.

"The risistance is backed by fact"

Funny that you didn't provide any of those facts which you claim support the resistance. As far as I know, there has never been an 'assault weapons ban' that had any teeth to it. The last one had 900 exceptions, so of course it accomplished nothing. Therefore, I can't see how there can be facts to dispute what I'm saying, because it hasn't been tried yet.
Yet you've done nothing to provide any support for your "facts". As I have asked before, "what exactly were these supposed 900 exceptions?" And how would not having those exceptions saved lives? That's gone unanswered twice now.

You keep throwing out that "900 exceptions" and "of course with those exceptions it accomplished nothing" yet continually refuse to support the claim with what the exceptions were and their effect.

I mean no disrespect Jim, but you entire argument has been "this is common sense" with no actual data to prove anything.

All I hear is extremes on this. Liberals seem to think that bans will put a stop to the deaths. You seem to be saying that bans won't stop a single person from getting their jands on what is banned.Now you're just putting words in my mouth, since I've never once made that statement.

A great NRA bumper sticker, except it doesn't pass the common sense test. Assault weapons are a very, very small portion of the American firearms market. I'm saying that 99% of what's sold should still be legal.
Again, something that cannot be supported. Especially when you consider: The AR-15 Is The Number One Selling Rifle In The U-S | WKRG (http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/jul/26/ar-15-number-one-selling-rifle-u-s-ar-4215646/)

Here's a tasty excerpt:"According the FBI, of the 199 homicides recorded in Alabama in 2010, handguns were used in 112, hands, fists or feet were used in 17, knives were used in 23....none were committed with a rifle."

Let's also consider that in just about all cases that an AR-15 is sold in a state that doesn't have an active AWB, a standard-size magazine is 20 or 30 rounds.

I'd guess demand is quite a bit higher than you'd guess, especially when considering you've already displayed a number of misunderstandings when it comes to firearms, firearm laws and availability.

Sure we should preach gun safety. That will doubtlessly save lives. Did you really think I was going to disagree with that?

Another way to save lives, potentially, is to remove weapons of extraordinarily high lethality that serve no legitimate purpose other than to make insecure folks feel like Rambo for a little while.



All guns can kill, even pellet guns so this is just a "feel good" liberal line to get a toe in the door...

Here is a 2010 survey and analysis of ownership and use of Modern Sporting Rifles.
You can see the type of people who own them, what they do with them and maybe learn a little.
Of course, it is likely all right wing propaganda generated just for this purpose.

http://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdf

and here you go....

"Highly placed sources told CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer that Cuomo is negotiating with Assembly and Senate leaders for a package of gun control laws that would be a dramatic response to the gun violence besetting the nation, including the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“It’s a very divisive topic,” Cuomo said on Wednesday. “There’s a lot of energy on both sides. Some people are vehemently against’ some people think we’re out of our minds for not passing it.”

Sources told Kramer the governor and lawmakers are negotiating furiously in the hope that Cuomo can announce a deal during his speech Wednesday.

Sources said the package is expected to include:

* New restrictions on assault weapons

* Stiffer penalties for using a gun to commit a crime

* New limits on the number of bullets in a gun magazine

“Gun control is highly political, politically contentious situation. It is polarizing,” Cuomo said."

* New restrictions on assault weapons

* Stiffer penalties for using a gun to commit a crime

* New limits on the number of bullets in a gun magazine

none of these would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter(and they won't stop the next one)..the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count...but that's a "might"...the nut that shot the firemen in NY had someone purchase his firearm for him...where there's a (demented)will there's a way....these measures are a joke, they will not reduce gun crimes....if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban and confiscation instead of bloviating over these meaningless restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by....

911 call released in Loganville home invasion - CBS Atlanta 46 (http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/20536626/911-call-released-in-loganville-home-invasion)

bloviating ....

I had to google that one...:hihi:

Here is a study on murders in Chicago.
It is detailed enough so that you could look at the proposed changes in gun laws and see what the effect would be.
Pretty close to nil.
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Murder%20Reports/MA11.pdf

Yet you've done nothing to provide any support for your "facts". As I have asked before, "what exactly were these supposed 900 exceptions?" And how would not having those exceptions saved lives? That's gone unanswered twice now.

You keep throwing out that "900 exceptions" and "of course with those exceptions it accomplished nothing" yet continually refuse to support the claim with what the exceptions were and their effect.

I mean no disrespect Jim, but you entire argument has been "this is common sense" with no actual data to prove anything.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth, since I've never once made that statement.


Again, something that cannot be supported. Especially when you consider: The AR-15 Is The Number One Selling Rifle In The U-S | WKRG (http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/jul/26/ar-15-number-one-selling-rifle-u-s-ar-4215646/)

Here's a tasty excerpt:"According the FBI, of the 199 homicides recorded in Alabama in 2010, handguns were used in 112, hands, fists or feet were used in 17, knives were used in 23....none were committed with a rifle."

Let's also consider that in just about all cases that an AR-15 is sold in a state that doesn't have an active AWB, a standard-size magazine is 20 or 30 rounds.

I'd guess demand is quite a bit higher than you'd guess, especially when considering you've already displayed a number of misunderstandings when it comes to firearms, firearm laws and availability.

"Yet you've done nothing to provide any support for your "facts""

You're absolutely right. What I am talking about has never been done before, so how can I come up with facts that support it? All I have is what, at least to me, appears to be this nugget of common sense...

certain weapons make it a lot easier to kill large numbers of people. If we make it harder for would-be mass murderers to get their hands on these things, we might be able to reduce the carnage they leave in their wake.

" continually refuse to support the claim with what the exceptions were and their effect."

I didn't see that you asked me for that until now.

Everything you need to know about the assault weapons ban, in one post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/)

A quote... (though I couldn't find any supporting data for the '900 exceptions' that was from a Charles Krauthammer editorial

"only 18 firearm models were explicitly banned. But it was easy for gun manufacturers to modify weapons slightly so that they didn’t fall under the ban"

"you entire argument has been "this is common sense" with no actual data to prove anything."

I never said otherwise. I have no data to prove that slaughtering unborn babies for convenience is immoral either, but it's common sense, at least to me. Some things can be proven emperically, some are more conceptual. I guess the best I can offer in terms of proof is this...when I was in the USMC, I never once told my kids to leave the rifles at the base and bring handguns. That sort of supports my belief that certain weapons are more effective than others, at killing large numbers of people.

And if you agree with that, it seems natural that you'd agree that we need to make it as difficult as possible for would-be mass murderers to get these weapons. All I'm saying is, we should have a conversation about whether or not there are reasonable steps we can take, to accomplish that (make it harder for kooks to get these things). Maybe we are doing all we can. I don't know. But it's worth looking at.

I have said repeatedly that I'm not necessarily in favor of banning anything. All I have said is that we should have a rational, honest, debate.

"The AR-15 Is The Number One Selling Rifle In The U-S | WKRG[/url]"

I have said in this thread, the AR-15 is just a scary-looking version of a small game hunting rifle. I have said in this thread, that the AR-15 isn't necessarily what I'm referring to, when I say that certain weapons are so potentially lethal, that we need to look at availability. I'll concede that, you made a perfectly valid point there.

"Here's a tasty excerpt:"According the FBI, of the 199 homicides recorded in Alabama in 2010, handguns were used in 112, hands, fists or feet were used in 17, knives were used in 23....none were committed with a rifle."

Fascinating. But irrelevent. Again, I have said repeatedly that typical street crime and random mass murders are two very different scenarios, and therefore they warrant different solutions. Also, why pick Alabama? Are you saying that rifles are never used in homicides anywhere? Are you aware of what happened in CT?

I wasn't aware that statisticians had conculded that what happened in Alabama in 2010 is necessarily indicative of what will happen everywhere else. There were zero shark attack deaths in Alabama in 2010. Does that mean sharks are extinct?

Johnny, I never, ever said that such a ban would eliminate all crime. I have repeatedly said the opposite. I concede that most gun deaths involve handguns. That does not, in any way whatsoever, refute my theory that lives might be saved if we restrict availability of the most weaopns that are most effective at killing the largest numbers of people in the smallest amount of time.

"you've already displayed a number of misunderstandings when it comes to firearms"

And the more I theorize on it, the more misstatements I might make, I'm no expert. One doesn't need to be an expert, I don't think, to conclude that it might be a good idea to discuss the pros and cons of the availability of the most lethal weapons. Pointing out that you can kill someone with your bare hands, doesn't refute my point. That would only refute my point if I was stupid enough to say that a limited ban would eliminate all crime.

Here is a study on murders in Chicago.
It is detailed enough so that you could look at the proposed changes in gun laws and see what the effect would be.
Pretty close to nil.
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Murder%20Reports/MA11.pdf

"Pretty close to nil."

I agree. But if the difference between "nil" and "pretty close to nil" is the life of a few children, is it not worth discussing? That's all I am saying.

none of these would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter(and they won't stop the next one)..the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count...but that's a "might"...the nut that shot the firemen in NY had someone purchase his firearm for him...where there's a (demented)will there's a way....these measures are a joke, they will not reduce gun crimes....if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban and confiscation instead of bloviating over these meaningless restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by....

"the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count."

I agree. All I can do is say we "might" reduce the body count, and certainly not by much, because most gun deaths are typical street crime with handguns. I never intended to suggest otherwise.

"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "

That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.

A total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional.

I don't see it as a "charade". Maybe what I'm proposing can't have a meaningful impact. But it's worth talking about, that's all I'm saying.

"restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by"

OK. So now you are saying that a ban on anything, has no impact whatsoever on the amount of that something that people own.

Scott, I concede that if you ban something (drugs, guns, booze) you cannot eliminate 100% of the ownership. But likewise, you cannot imply that it has zero impact on ownership either. My point was never "if we ban guns, exactly zero people will therefore own guns". You tried to refute my premise by suggesting that bans are not 100% effective. Many people in this thread have also done exactly that. It's not a valid rebuttal to what I am suggesting, because my point was never "we can eliminate 100% of the guns out there". Amazing.

Here is another aspect of new laws and background checks:

In a letter to the president shortly after the Newtown shooting a number of mayors across the country which are part of a group called MAIG (mayors against gun violence) adressed 7 aspects to curbing gun violence. Some of the points in the letter were the normal rhetoric of banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines, but items 5 and 6 are rather revealing in my opinion.


From the letter:

5. Prosecute prohibited purchasers who attempted to buy firearms, ammunition or high capacity magazines: The justice department should vigorously prosecute felons and other prohibited purchasers who fail gun background check. In 2009, the FBI referred more than 71,000 such cases to ATF, but the US Attorneys ultimately prosecuted only 77 of them. Prosecuting these offenders is a goal broadly supported by our coalition and the National Rifle Association.

6. Required federal agencies to report records to NICS: The NICS Improvement Act of 2007 required federal agancies to submit mental health, substance abuse and other records that prohibit a person from owning a gun to NICS. However, few agencies comly. In October 2011, the FBI provided data to MAIG on reporting by 60 federal agencies. Of those 60 agencies, 52 had given zero mental health records to NICS. Although total federal agency reporting of mental health records increased by ten percent between march and October 2011, to 143579, the vast majority of those records had been submitted by one agency, the dept fo Veteran affairs. Even fewer federal agencies are reporting drug abusers. Only three agencies - the FBI, the US coast guard, and the Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the probation and parole services agency for the Distric of Columbia - have submitted any substance abuse records, and the vast majority fo federal agencies, including the DEA, have not submitted a single substance abuse record. ..."


So,

the government should clean their own house first since they have only prosecuted 0.1 % of all failed background checks. And have actually convicted even less (very close to 0).

Here is another aspect of new laws and background checks:

In a letter to the president shortly after the Newtown shooting a number of mayors across the country which are part of a group called MAIG (mayors against gun violence) adressed 7 aspects to curbing gun violence. Some of the points in the letter were the normal rhetoric of banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines, but items 5 and 6 are rather revealing in my opinion.



I like that there's a group called "mayors against gun violence". As if there are mayors out there who are in favor of gun violence.

The big problem is our culture, not availability of guns. If every single person on the planet were given a gun, I'm certain that murder rates in the US would still be much higher than most other developed countries. I have no idea how to fix that.

Exactly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "

That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.

A total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional.


If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional? Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional? Is their a spectrum, as Spence might argue, of constitutionality. Are constitutional and unconstitutional merely "one extreme or the other"? Is the Constitution to be "interpreted" by degrees? Should we determine that what is constitutional is what falls mathematically in the center of extreme opinions.? That seems to be a way to keep the Constitiution "living."

Keeping in mind the way the Constitution was originally written--it was not meant to determine actual policies per se, or to be a codex of actual civil laws by which the people would be governed, but it was a structure of government that delegated which TYPE of policy would be the responsibility of which branch of Federal Government, and that if a type of policy was not delegated to the central gvt., such policies were reserved to the states and people--keeping that in mind, would you say that "gun control" policies that restrict individual gun ownership should be responsibilities of states and their people, or of the Federal Government?

my mistake - MAIG stands for Mayors against Illegal Guns.

"Pretty close to nil."

I agree. But if the difference between "nil" and "pretty close to nil" is the life of a few children, is it not worth discussing? That's all I am saying.
Using that logic if the children had been garroted with wire leader we would make wire leader illegal thereby preventing this from happening again.

"the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count."

I agree. All I can do is say we "might" reduce the body count, and certainly not by much, because most gun deaths are typical street crime with handguns. I never intended to suggest otherwise.



Jim,
The difference is, you are one of the few on this board that I assume have seen first hand what these weapons do to a human. I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have....

Lets start simple. Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?

Why do people think a 223 or 5.56 round is especially lethal?
They are typically full metal jacket, not an expanding round.
No deer hunter would expect one to be useful in killing a deer, typically human size.
A full metal jacket is a round prescribed by the Geneva Convention that ideally injures a human so that they then require the help of another combatant.
Two people out of the fight rather than one.

If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional? Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional? Is their a spectrum, as Spence might argue, of constitutionality. Are constitutional and unconstitutional merely "one extreme or the other"? Is the Constitution to be "interpreted" by degrees? Should we determine that what is constitutional is what falls mathematically in the center of extreme opinions.? That seems to be a way to keep the Constitiution "living."

Keeping in mind the way the Constitution was originally written--it was not meant to determine actual policies per se, or to be a codex of actual civil laws by which the people would be governed, but it was a structure of government that delegated which TYPE of policy would be the responsibility of which branch of Federal Government, and that if a type of policy was not delegated to the central gvt., such policies were reserved to the states and people--keeping that in mind, would you say that "gun control" policies that restrict individual gun ownership should be responsibilities of states and their people, or of the Federal Government?

"If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional?"

Good question. My best answer is that we had a ban in 1994, and as far as I know, it was not struck down by the Supreme Court.

"Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional?"

That's part of the debate I'd like to see. As I have said repeatedly, I wouldn't support any ban that was unconstitutional. That would need to be a significant part of any considered legislation.

Using that logic if the children had been garroted with wire leader we would make wire leader illegal thereby preventing this from happening again.

Right, because there's no difference between a wire leader, or a brick, or your bare hands, and a rifle with a large capacity magazine.

Many things are potentially lethal, but have significant value and utility in our lives - like a car. No rational person would suggest a federal ban on cars.

If you have to make ridiculous exaggerations to my point in order to make it seem like a weak argument, it seems to me that you have no argument against what I am actually saying.

Again.. Exactly! :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Texting is the #1 cause of automobile deaths in the US. It's illegal to text and drive in most states. Making it illegal to text and drive hasn’t helped the cause or reduced the death rate.

Maybe a federal ban outlawing cellphones would eliminate this…………………..

Jim, this new liberal approach that I see from you is quite refreshing! :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like that there's a group called "mayors against gun violence". As if there are mayors out there who are in favor of gun violence.

The big problem is our culture, not availability of guns. If every single person on the planet were given a gun, I'm certain that murder rates in the US would still be much higher than most other developed countries. I have no idea how to fix that.

Invest more money in social programs 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim,
The difference is, you are one of the few on this board that I assume have seen first hand what these weapons do to a human. I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have....

Lets start simple. Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?

"I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have.... "

Maybe. But in my case, I can state for sure that long before I entered teh service, I questioned the need for some of these weapons to be available to anyone but the military and law enforcement.

"Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?[/QUOTE]"

Using the same logic that many here have displayed...I could say that...

(1)No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because some people who fail the background checks will still get guns illegally. Therefore, the background checks will serve no discernable purpose.

(2) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because you can also kill someone with a hammer, and I don't want 'Big Brother' making me submit to a background check every time I go to buy a hammer.

(3) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because errors in the checks will deny some law-abiding folks of their constitutional right to own a gun.

(4) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because in states where they have background checks, gun violence rates are still higher than 0.00000%. Therefore, background checks serve no discernable purpose whatsoever.

(5) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because that will make it harder for our citizenry to protect us from the totalitarian government. Because obviously, the only reason why the 82nd Airborne hasn't confiscated my house yet, is because they think I might have a gun. There's no other reason why they haven't come in, kidnapped my kids, and sold them on Craigslist.

"I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have.... "

Maybe. But in my case, I can state for sure that long before I entered teh service, I questioned the need for some of these weapons to be available to anyone but the military and law enforcement.

"Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?"

Using the same logic that many here have displayed...I could say that...

(1)No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because some people who fail the background checks will still get guns illegally. Therefore, the background checks will serve no discernable purpose.

(2) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because you can also kill someone with a hammer, and I don't want 'Big Brother' making me submit to a background check every time I go to buy a hammer.

(3) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because errors in the checks will deny some law-abiding folks of their constitutional right to own a gun.

(4) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because in states where they have background checks, gun violence rates are still higher than 0.00000%. Therefore, background checks serve no discernable purpose whatsoever.

(5) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because that will make it harder for our citizenry to protect us from the totalitarian government. Because obviously, the only reason why the 82nd Airborne hasn't confiscated my house yet, is because they think I might have a gun. There's no other reason why they haven't come in, kidnapped my kids, and sold them on Craigslist.[/QUOTE]

Here in ma they do background checks .
Seems to be working out swell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't get how this went from banning a broad category of weapons that are not typically used in crimes to background checks.
I think they should start by using the legislation that has already been enacted. Few federal agencies submit the needed info to do background checks, few prosecutions occur for firearms violations.
More laws that are ignored helps how?
I am waiting for the law outlawing death, with the following exceptions and appropriate punishment.
Every child is in more danger of dying an early death from obesity than an "assault" rifle.

Every child is in more danger of dying an early death from obesity than an "assault" rifle.

That's another argument I keep saying...because these weapons aren't the number 1 cause of death, we don't need to discuss it?

To put it another way...more kids will die from obesity than will drown. Does that mean you are equally dismissive of laws that require little kids to wear life jackets on a boat? Why have those laws! It's not the number 1 cause of death, so why the hell should we care?

Jim, this new liberal approach that I see from you is quite refreshing! :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, I'm no blind ideologue. I believe what my the facts and my conscience suggest that I should believe, not what anyone else tells me to believe. I have always said that I feel liberals make a better point than conservatives (to a degree) on gun control and gay marriage.

Thanks though.

That's another argument I keep saying...because these weapons aren't the number 1 cause of death, we don't need to discuss it?

To put it another way...more kids will die from obesity than will drown. Does that mean you are equally dismissive of laws that require little kids to wear life jackets on a boat? Why have those laws! It's not the number 1 cause of death, so why the hell should we care?

Funny you missed the whole point he made.....WE HAVE ENOUGH LAWS
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Violence is a learned behavior. It is not genetic.
The games kids play, where they plot online with several teammates, how to kill as many people as they need to win I believe has a negative effect on sociaty . In some cases its the only place in kide these kids win .The NRA was ridiculed for mentioning it.
My kids have always been brought around firearms and the respect needed to handle them. I didn't encourage these games. Hell, I bet alot of anti gun advocates bought their children these games got Christmas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Texting is the #1 cause of automobile deaths in the US. It's illegal to text and drive in most states. Making it illegal to text and drive hasn’t helped the cause or reduced the death rate.

Maybe a federal ban outlawing cellphones would eliminate this…………………..

And maybe you could attempt to respond to what people here are actually saying, instead of putting radical jibberich words in our mouths. Did anyone here propose to ban guns entirely?

You think that a law banning high capacity magazines is comparable in scope to a law banning cell phones? Are high capacity magazines as instrumental to our collective pursuit of happiness, as cell phones are? Do you really think that?

Maybe another analogy. Since there are 10 of thousands of auto related deaths every year (give or take, very close to the same number as gun related deaths) and we don't ban cars why would we ban guns for gun related deaths? Driver license may get revoked (which does not stop someone from driving)

Also keep in mind about 1/2 of all gun related deaths are gang and drug related.

If the legislators gave equal effort and the news gave equal air time to addressing mental health, reducing drug related violence, gang violence, suicides, prosecuting and convicting those that break current gun laws, along with conversations as to how do high capacity magazines and scary guns contribute to crime (ie crime control instead of only gun control, then maybe a "reasonable" and "sensible" discussion can be had. It seems to me most of the "discussion" is rhetoric and real issues are not addressed.

As long as "gun control" is an agenda instead of focusing on crime control and the issues that lead to crime, a real conversation will not happen.

man this thread is givving me a headache

Maybe another analogy. Since there are 10 of thousands of auto related deaths every year (give or take, very close to the same number as gun related deaths) and we don't ban cars why would we ban guns for gun related deaths? Driver license may get revoked (which does not stop someone from driving)

Also keep in mind about 1/2 of all gun related deaths are gang and drug related.

If the legislators gave equal effort and the news gave equal air time to addressing mental health, reducing drug related violence, gang violence, suicides, prosecuting and convicting those that break current gun laws, along with conversations as to how do high capacity magazines and scary guns contribute to crime (ie crime control instead of only gun control, then maybe a "reasonable" and "sensible" discussion can be had. It seems to me most of the "discussion" is rhetoric and real issues are not addressed.

As long as "gun control" is an agenda instead of focusing on crime control and the issues that lead to crime, a real conversation will not happen.

"Since there are 10 of thousands of auto related deaths every year (give or take, very close to the same number as gun related deaths) and we don't ban cars why would we ban guns for gun related deaths?"

Once again, for like the tenth time, because almost everyone in America has a legitimate need for a car. Cars allowed us to get out of the cities and into the suburbs. Just about no one (except law enforcement and military) has a need for a high-capacity magazine. There is a reason why no one is calling for a car ban, but many are calling for a ban on the most lethal weapons.

"ie crime control instead of only gun control"

Agreed 100%. But I don't think that means we necessarily ignore gun control.

man this thread is givving me a headache

You and me Both :wall:

Jim,

I am not advocating a car ban either. But, I am also against gun bans or magazine bans. I also agree that most people need a car to preserve a way of life, however, you don't need to prove a need or any legitimacy to by any car you want. No-one needs a really fast sports car or a really large truck just to drive to the office. Both of those vehicles may injure or kill people if used recklessly. And if they are, the driver should be punished to the full extent of the law. Why do I need to provide any justification to lawfully own a gun that can hold 30 rounds? Again, part of the fear is today it is 30 round magazines tomorrow it is 10, next week I can only justify a single shot firemarm. The gun control agenda is just that - an agenda - It has no basis to solve any real life issues.

And maybe you could attempt to respond to what people here are actually saying, instead of putting radical jibberich words in our mouths. Did anyone here propose to ban guns entirely?

You think that a law banning high capacity magazines is comparable in scope to a law banning cell phones? Are high capacity magazines as instrumental to our collective pursuit of happiness, as cell phones are? Do you really think that?

Jibberich? You spew more gibberish on this site than anyone (I must admit that many times I agree with it though :))

I'm not saying a law banning high capacity magazines is comparable in scope but I am saying that cell phone texting causes more deaths than high capacity magazines.

The point I’m trying to make is that banning something or making something illegal gives people a warm and fuzzy but in reality, it hardly ever is the solution. I don’t own any high capacity weaponry, nor do I want to. I just think jumping to the “make them illegal” bandwagon is a slippery slope and really hides the true problem with our society. It’s not the guns I’m afraid of, it’s the people. We need to change the people………………….

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;978783

"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "

That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.

[/QUOTE]

follow your own logic Jim..if banning certain rifles and magazine capacities might have reduced the number of deaths(provided he didn't opt for more handguns and perhaps the shotgun that was in the trunk or decided to be less thorough on his targets)...and you seem to support that notion...then.....banning all weapons similar to what he used and magazines might have prevented all of the deaths...no???...surely you aren't going to argue for one and reject the other :confused:

Jibberich? You spew more gibberish on this site than anyone (I must admit that many times I agree with it though :))

………………….

that was damn funny :)

Maybe I can turn the thread around a bit and still keep the "guns" theme. How many individuals here have their LTC? I am currently waiting for mine in the mail. I actually had my interview and firing range test 4 days after Newtown. Apparently since Newtown they have been inundated with applications and the city of Boston is 2 months behind due to the increased volume.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe I can turn the thread around a bit and still keep the "guns" theme. How many individuals here have their LTC? I am currently waiting for mine in the mail. I actually had my interview and firing range test 4 days after Newtown. Apparently since Newtown they have been inundated with applications and the city of Boston is 2 months behind due to the increased volume.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm in the process as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe I can turn the thread around a bit and still keep the "guns" theme. How many individuals here have their LTC? I am currently waiting for mine in the mail. I actually had my interview and firing range test 4 days after Newtown. Apparently since Newtown they have been inundated with applications and the city of Boston is 2 months behind due to the increased volume.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have been shooting since 5 or 6 years old, and I have a class A ltc.

Here are some interesting statistics the Democrats, and Mainstream Media don't want to report, just watch the video....

Choose Your Own Crime Stats - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&feature=player_embedded)

I'm in the process as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

x3

You guys just want your houses to be on the list of ones not to break into (CC permit holders)

You guys just want your houses to be on the list of ones not to break into (CC permit holders)

Nope, I want one in case a big pissed off Mako jumps in my boat!

"If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional?"

Good question. My best answer is that we had a ban in 1994, and as far as I know, it was not struck down by the Supreme Court.

There are two constitutional problems to consider in regards to the SCOTUS not striking down the 1994 ban. First, the NRA did not challenge the law on Second Amendment grounds. It feared, rightly or wrongly, that the Court would be inimical on those grounds. So the direct constitutional Second Ammendment restriction on the Federal Government to impose such a ban was not tested. Although, one of the provisions, which required state law enforcement to implement the Federal requirement to do the background checks was struck down on the grounds that the Federal Gvt. cannot compel the states to enforce its policies. Second the rest of the act was upheld under the infamous precedent created by the FDR Court that applies the Commerce Clause to INTRAstate commerce rather than being restricted to the power to "regulate" INTERstate commerce.

But that doesn't answer my question. If a total ban is unconstitutional, why is a partial ban not unconstitutional? What part of the ban is Constitutional? If the Commerce Clause can be stretched to include any commerce whatsoever, as it has been construed since FDR, how would a total ban be unconstitutional? Or, for that matter, since just about anything we do is in some way related to commerce, how would a Federal ban on anything else be unconstitutional. So, by interpreting the Commerce Clause in this way, which obviously renders the Constitution moot, we will be allowed to do and buy or sell those things that the Federal Government deems necessary or harmless, and we will be restricted to those rights that the government grants us rather than it being restricted to those rights we have granted to it. And if you think that serious gun control advocates just want to restrict scary looking guns, or only those with the capacity to kill more people quickly, you haven't been paying attention.

"Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional?"

That's part of the debate I'd like to see. As I have said repeatedly, I wouldn't support any ban that was unconstitutional. That would need to be a significant part of any considered legislation.

The debate will go along the lines that have been drawn in this thread. So you are already seeing the debate here. The things being said here are as "reasonable" as the debate will get. And, probably, emotional arguments and "numbers" arguments will prevail at least to some degree, and we will get a "reasonable" bill passed. Whether or not it will actually be constitutional will be irrelevant. The common view that we must wait for SCOTUS debate to discover constitutionality absolves us from understanding the Constitution ourselves. It was written for us, not for the government except to give it bounds that it was not to trespass. It was written by people like us--farmers, mechanics, artisans, shopkeepers, as well as scholars and lawyers--for us. It was an improbable gift that might never be offered again. It was originally simply and directly put, but was made incomprehensible by successions of "interpretation" and bad case law so that only a small portion of it now is even given so-called "strict scrutiny," the rest being handed over to the Federal Government branches to say what it means. And that small portion given strict consideration is what's left of the bill of rights. And those are being worked on by politicians and judges--as attested to by increasing attempts at "gun control" as well as speech, property, and religious restrictions, against us rather than reserving them as the people's rights.

When you say that you wouldn't support any ban that wasn't constitutional, that implies you have an understanding of what is constitutional. If so, why must you wait for SCOTUS decisions, which have already muddied the Constitution into a swamp of judicial and congressional and executive whim, to find out?

When you say that you wouldn't support any ban that wasn't constitutional, that implies you have an understanding of what is constitutional. If so, why must you wait for SCOTUS decisions, which have already muddied the Constitution into a swamp of judicial and congressional and executive whim, to find out?
So the SCOTUS is irrelevant on the Second Amendment? I seem to remember the Heller decision being applauded among many gun rights advocates while it also seems to back Jim's position.

-spence

So the SCOTUS is irrelevant on the Second Amendment? I seem to remember the Heller decision being applauded among many gun rights advocates while it also seems to back Jim's position.

-spence
Heller was a chip in the right direction. It addressed gun ownership in light of the Second Ammendment, not the Commerce Clause. I don't think it addressed Federal regulations in light of the Second Ammendment.

Originally, and as it was adjudicated throughout the 19th Century, the Second Ammendment was strictly a prohibition against the Federal Government. States were allowed restrictive gun laws if they so chose. Heller now, at least affirms, that the states cannot abridge the Second Ammendment in regards to arms in common use. But it still leaves the door open for state restrictions of other types of weapons. Which is why I also asked Jim, and he didn't answer, if he thought the Constitution, as it was written, placed the issue of gun control under state jurisdiction or Federal. Which is why I also asked you why you thought the Constitution made it impossible to implement The Specialist's suggestions on gun regulation.

So, under what Constitutional provision, enumeration, whatever, does the Federal Government have the power to legislate individual gun ownership? And if the answer is the Commerce Clause, or General Welflare Clause, that is mostly the kind of non-sensensical, muddied-up "interpretation" that has pretty much made the Constitution a toy for judges rather than a structure of government, and is the type of "interpretation" that Madison referred to when he said "If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment should be thrown into the fire at once."

I've got it
Make them green
The politicians will fund them, liberals will want them and the conservatives will get rid of theirs.

With Eric Holder and Joe Biden in charge Obamas about to try to slam this down our throats by Executive Order.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think it addressed Federal regulations in light of the Second Ammendment.

Heller settled the "fundamental right" question, at least for self-defense. This determines the level of scrutiny applied to contested law.

Originally, and as it was adjudicated throughout the 19th Century, the Second Ammendment was strictly a prohibition against the Federal Government. States were allowed restrictive gun laws if they so chose. Heller now, at least affirms, that the states cannot abridge the Second Ammendment in regards to arms in common use.

McDonald v Chicago in 2010 finally applied the 2nd Amendment to the states via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment (Incorporation). The primary outcome of Heller was the invalidation of the "militia right" and "state's right" perversions inserted into the federal courts in 1942 by the First and Third Circuits. This ended 70 years of lower federal and state courts being off the rails and forced them into the constitutional holding that SCOTUS has consistently held for the right to arms for 170 years.

But it still leaves the door open for state restrictions of other types of weapons.

"Type" of weapon is of vital importance to answering the question of what restrictions are constitutional. I addressed this a ways back.Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual' arms. But . . . government does not get to begin its action presuming the arm is "dangerous and unusual" because it doesn't think the citizens have any good reason to own it, or it isn't used in hunting (i.e., the present idiotic "Assault Weapons" ban hoopla).

The Supreme Court in 1939 established the criteria for courts (and presumably legislatures :smash:) to determine if an arm is afforded 2nd Amendment protection.

If the type of arm meets any one of them then it cannot be deemed 'dangerous and unusual' and the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and any authority claimed by government to restrict its possession and use is repelled.

Those criteria state that to be protected by the 2nd Amendment the arm must be:

A type in common use at the present time and/or
A type usually employed in civilized warfare / that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or
A type that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.


Failing ALL those tests, the arm could then and only then be argued to be "dangerous and unusual" and the government would be permitted to argue that a legitimate power to restrict that type of arm should be afforded .

"Dangerous and Unusual" is what's left after the protection criteria are all applied and all fail . . . Think of it as legal Scrapple . . .
Which is why I also asked Jim, and he didn't answer

That seems to be a common theme here among those who are proposing sweeping gun control (at least when one is discussing the Constitution and the law 1 (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/political-threads/80541-nra-3.html#post978147), 2 (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/political-threads/80541-nra-4.html#post978164), 3 (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/political-threads/80541-nra-4.html#post978307), . . . assorted red herrings and tangential diversions into the weeds are engaged with enthusiasm though).

So, under what Constitutional provision, enumeration, whatever, does the Federal Government have the power to legislate individual gun ownership?

There is none.

No power was ever granted to the federal government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen and in fact, the private citizen and his personal arms are twice removed from any Congressional "militia" authority.

People forget (purposely I think) what the framers considered the nature of our rights to be . . . To them, rights were "exceptions of powers never granted" . . . essentially the "great residuum" of everything not conferred to government (http://fas-history.rutgers.edu/clemens/constitutional1/MadisononBillofRights.html). It was asked, why add a "bill of rights" to a specific, clearly defined "bill of powers"?

The Federalists argued emphatically against adding a bill of rights (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm); to them a bill of rights was considered a redundant and dangerous absurdity.

A bill of rights "would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

Of course the Federalists "lost" the debate over adding a bill of rights but the 9th and 10th Amendments stand as testament to the universally accepted status of their arguments.


And if the answer is the Commerce Clause, or General Welflare Clause, that is mostly the kind of non-sensensical, muddied-up "interpretation" that has pretty much made the Constitution a toy for judges rather than a structure of government, and is the type of "interpretation" that Madison referred to when he said "If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment should be thrown into the fire at once."

But it is precisely that kind of invented powers that the left needs and rests its arguments on.

Now it is being threatened that gun control measures will be "enacted" through Executive Order (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/politics/gun-control-battle/index.html).

Are these Constitutional idiots really that stupid?

Can any supporter of this administration explain how gun control can be "enacted" by EO?

Are these Constitutional idiots really that stupid?

Can any supporter of this administration explain how gun control can be "enacted" by EO?

he doesn't really want to sidestep Congress...but he's being forced to...it's in our best interest :uhuh:

these guys are funny....

January 8, 2013

"CNN and the gun grabbing media are now calling for Alex Jones to be shot the day after his heated appearance with Piers Morgan.

In a segment on Piers Morgan’s CNN program, sports columnist for the Daily Beast, Buzz Bissinger, shockingly states:

“I don’t care what the justification is that you’re allowed in this country to own a semi-automatic weapon – much less a handgun. But what do you need a semi-automatic weapon for? The only reason I think you’d need it is, Piers, challenge Alex Jones to a boxing match, show up with a semi-automatic that you got legally and pop him.”

Abby Huntsman (Huffington Post) : “I’d love to see that… [laughter] in uniform.”

Piers Morgan: “I’ll borrow my brothers uniform.”"



"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788

That seems to be a common theme here among those who are proposing sweeping gun control (at least when one is discussing the Constitution and the law 1 (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/political-threads/80541-nra-3.html#post978147), 2 (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/political-threads/80541-nra-4.html#post978164), 3 (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/political-threads/80541-nra-4.html#post978307), . . . assorted red herrings and tangential diversions into the weeds are engaged with enthusiasm though).



you are also discussing the Constitution in many case with people who have little knowledge and even less respect for the Constitution and who are more interested in finding ways around it rather than following it....which is why it's often a frustrating one sided argument...like yelling at a wall :)

you are also discussing the Constitution in many case with people who have little knowledge and even less respect for the Constitution and who are more interested in finding ways around it rather than following it....which is why it's often a frustrating one sided argument...like yelling at a wall :)
My new motto for 2013:
"You cannot reason with the unreasonable."

I started this the end of 2012 and it has actually been quite nice. Some people have an irrational, emotional commitment to some positions and there's no changing their view or having a rational conversation - like trying to convince spence that Obama doesn't walk on water (I joke spence).

One thing people do not realize is that when the constitution was written MILITIA was anybody and everybody who lived in the town. Nowadays people refer to the National Guard as the MILITIA, but that is really just a Federal peacetime Army which can be activated at anytime, hence not a MILITIA

I really think there can be some things done to help unfortunately there are too many radicals on both sides of the aisle, and the Left never wants to listen to those in the know.

The intent of the framers was to have an armed citizenry to prevent TYRANNY. If the emperor knows the people are unarmed, he is free to do whatever he wants. If you look at the dictators of the 20th century, they all began their climb to power by disarming the citizenry..

With Eric Holder and Joe Biden in charge Obamas about to try to slam this down our throats by Executive Order.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is what scares me

this is what scares me

Obama has nothing to lose now, he can not run again so his real "It's my way or the highway" persona will show through..

Obama has nothing to lose now, he can not run again so his real "It's my way or the highway" persona will show through..
As an individual, Obama has nothing to lose. As a party, the Democrats were completely destroyed in the election after the last time they passed the FAWB.

This is why I think Obama is trying to exploit Executive Orders in order to push a gun-control agenda. It gives the Democratic legislators "plausible dependability" so that Republicans can't point at the incumbents during the next election and say "that guy voted to take away your freedoms. That guy found it less important to focus on a balanced budget and resolving our fiscal time bomb than the importance he put in making law-abiding citizens less safe in their own homes."

More stuff about background checks:

As of 2010, federal law does not prohibit members of terrorist organizations from purchasing or possessing firearms or explosives.

Between February 2004 and February 2010, 1,225 firearm and three explosives background checks for people on terrorist watch lists were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, 91% of the firearm transactions and 100% of the explosives transactions were allowed

Under federal law, individuals who have been convicted of a felony offense that would typically prohibit them from possessing firearms can lawfully possess firearms if their civil rights are restored by the requisite government entities. As of 2002, 15 states automatically restore the firearm rights of convicts upon their release from prison or completion of parole, and 6 other states automatically restore the firearm rights of juvenile convicts upon their release from prison or completion of parole.

To undergo a background check, prospective gun buyers are required by federal regulations to present "photo-identification issued by a government entity." Using fake driver's licenses bearing fictitious names, investigators with the Government Accountability Office had a 100% success rate buying firearms in five states that met the minimum requirements of the federal background check system. A 2001 report of this investigation states that the federal background check system "does not positively identify purchasers of firearms," and thus, people using fake IDs are not flagged by the system


Now, I do agree with having a background check system. Not everyone should be allowed to own a gun. But I have an issue with the government telling me I cannot legally and lawfully own a certain gun / # of bullets / size of magazine because someone who should have never had a gun in the first place committed a hideous crime, which in many cases could have been prevented if the government did what they were supposed to do (both support and enforce the all the current laws and regulations)

More stuff about background checks:

As of 2010, federal law does not prohibit members of terrorist organizations from purchasing or possessing firearms or explosives.

Between February 2004 and February 2010, 1,225 firearm and three explosives background checks for people on terrorist watch lists were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, 91% of the firearm transactions and 100% of the explosives transactions were allowed

Under federal law, individuals who have been convicted of a felony offense that would typically prohibit them from possessing firearms can lawfully possess firearms if their civil rights are restored by the requisite government entities. As of 2002, 15 states automatically restore the firearm rights of convicts upon their release from prison or completion of parole, and 6 other states automatically restore the firearm rights of juvenile convicts upon their release from prison or completion of parole.

To undergo a background check, prospective gun buyers are required by federal regulations to present "photo-identification issued by a government entity." Using fake driver's licenses bearing fictitious names, investigators with the Government Accountability Office had a 100% success rate buying firearms in five states that met the minimum requirements of the federal background check system. A 2001 report of this investigation states that the federal background check system "does not positively identify purchasers of firearms," and thus, people using fake IDs are not flagged by the system


Now, I do agree with having a background check system. Not everyone should be allowed to own a gun. But I have an issue with the government telling me I cannot legally and lawfully own a certain gun / # of bullets / size of magazine because someone who should have never had a gun in the first place committed a hideous crime, which in many cases could have been prevented if the government did what they were supposed to do (both support and enforce the all the current laws and regulations)

Amen.

Heller was a chip in the right direction. It addressed gun ownership in light of the Second Ammendment, not the Commerce Clause. I don't think it addressed Federal regulations in light of the Second Ammendment.

Originally, and as it was adjudicated throughout the 19th Century, the Second Ammendment was strictly a prohibition against the Federal Government. States were allowed restrictive gun laws if they so chose. Heller now, at least affirms, that the states cannot abridge the Second Ammendment in regards to arms in common use. But it still leaves the door open for state restrictions of other types of weapons. Which is why I also asked Jim, and he didn't answer, if he thought the Constitution, as it was written, placed the issue of gun control under state jurisdiction or Federal. Which is why I also asked you why you thought the Constitution made it impossible to implement The Specialist's suggestions on gun regulation.

So, under what Constitutional provision, enumeration, whatever, does the Federal Government have the power to legislate individual gun ownership? And if the answer is the Commerce Clause, or General Welflare Clause, that is mostly the kind of non-sensensical, muddied-up "interpretation" that has pretty much made the Constitution a toy for judges rather than a structure of government, and is the type of "interpretation" that Madison referred to when he said "If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment should be thrown into the fire at once."
It's interesting that in demanding an answer you refuse, in advance, to accept the proper one.

That the Commerce Clause has been subject to liberal interpretation isn't really the issue...it is what it is...and there's a massive body of legislative interpretation that is now part of our society. Even in Heller the most conservative members of the SCOTUS appear by my reckoning to affirm the Federal Government's power to regulate firearms with some limits.

-spence

It's interesting that in demanding an answer you refuse, in advance, to accept the proper one.

That the Commerce Clause has been subject to liberal interpretation isn't really the issue...it is what it is...and there's a massive body of legislative interpretation that is now part of our society. Even in Heller the most conservative members of the SCOTUS appear by my reckoning to affirm the Federal Government's power to regulate firearms with some limits.

-spence

legislative interpretation

interesting phrase...I had to Google it....I'll let Detbuch evicerate you on the rest :)

legislative interpretation

interesting phrase...I had to Google it....I'll let Detbuch evicerate you on the rest :)
I'd like him to explain why Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito are all flaming lefties.

-spence

I'd like him to explain why Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito are all flaming lefties.

-spence

maybe you could explain :confused:

As an individual, Obama has nothing to lose. As a party, the Democrats were completely destroyed in the election after the last time they passed the FAWB.
The 1994 sweep didn't happen because of the assault weapons ban, if anything that was a late sideshow...the GOP was successful because they ran against excess attributed to longstanding control by Dem's and the Contract With America.


This is why I think Obama is trying to exploit Executive Orders in order to push a gun-control agenda. It gives the Democratic legislators "plausible dependability" so that Republicans can't point at the incumbents during the next election and say "that guy voted to take away your freedoms. That guy found it less important to focus on a balanced budget and resolving our fiscal time bomb than the importance he put in making law-abiding citizens less safe in their own homes."
I assume you meant plausible denialability?

-spence

Can any supporter of this administration explain how gun control can be "enacted" by EO?
It would likely depend on what the order was. I believe Both Bush 41 and Clinton used it to restrict firearms by citing previous law. The more sweeping the order the less likelihood it would stand legal challenge.

-spence

I assume you meant plausible denialability?

-spence

more likely..... "deniability"

more likely..... "deniability"
Yes, glad to see we can agree :love:

-spence

Yes, glad to see we can agree :love:

-spence

that would be difficult to determine...that's the second term you've used today that turns up nothing when you Google it :uhuh: couldn't even find that in the Urban Dictionary:)

that would be difficult to determine...that's the second term you've used today that turns up nothing when you Google it :uhuh: couldn't even find that in the Urban Dictionary:)

Legislative interp was meant to infer a lot of legislation has been interpreted and found Constitutional by the Judicial branch. Doubt it's a standard phrase...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's interesting that in demanding an answer you refuse, in advance, to accept the proper one.

If the "proper one" is in dispute, and I join that dispute in my opinion, therefor believing that the "proper one" is improper, how am I somehow required to disavow my own argument before I can argue?

Besides, I don't know WTF you're talking about.

That the Commerce Clause has been subject to liberal interpretation isn't really the issue...it is what it is...and there's a massive body of legislative interpretation that is now part of our society.

It is not an issue in the Heller case because it was not invoked. That the Commerce Clause has been subject to liberal mis-interpretation is most definitely an issue. And much of that "liberal interpretation" can and should be struck down. Stare decisis is binding on the lower courts (though even they don't always abide by it). But it is not binding on the SCOTUS. SCOTUS has reversed "interpretations" just as the "liberal interpretations" were reversals of original understanding from the founding through most of the 19t century. Those original interpretations began to be chipped away by progressive legislators and judges especially from FDR on. They have transformed the Constitution as written (and intended) into a shadow structure of what it originally was, and whose "meaning" is ad hoc determination dependant on the preference of politicians and judges. It no longer constrains them as it was meant to do, but gives them the cover of authority as they twist it to their desired ends. That is what is now part of our society. And I contend that is the major reason that our governmental "system is broken". And why we are, as a nation, steeped in unsustainable debt, and have to constantly resort to tweaking and manipulating and raising debt ceilings and taxes, and why the Federal Government is now a top-down progenitor of law, regulation, and fixer of societies ills. And I believe that is the "proper answer" and will not disavow it.

Even in Heller the most conservative members of the SCOTUS appear by my reckoning to affirm the Federal Government's power to regulate firearms with some limits.

-spence

Where in Heller is the Federal Government power to regulate firearms affirmed? Heller was not a suit against the Federal Government. It was against a D.C. gun ban. And even I would not dispute that the Federal Government has the power to regulate the interstate transport of guns, as well that of actual interstate commerce. But, again, and again, the distinction between "inter" and "intra" should not be muddied into the same instrument. But Heller was not about the interstate transport of guns. The majority decision was against a local gun ban, not a federal one. And the concession that there might be restrictions on certain types of "arms" (to be decided by future cases if they arise), is not taken out of state hands by Heller and delivered into Federal domain.

Legislative interp was meant to infer a lot of legislation has been interpreted and found Constitutional by the Judicial branch. Doubt it's a standard phrase...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you made it up...:uhuh:

Where in Heller is the Federal Government power to regulate firearms affirmed?

it's not...it "appears by his reckoning"...one of those interp things that can cause so much trouble in the wrong hands :)

you made it up...:uhuh:

My expectation is that you can read a sentence and think critically.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My expectation is that you can read a sentence and think critically.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your sentences are so frequently full of convoluted points, made up reality and vague claims of fact....it's difficult sometimes to make sense of them...but they can be amusing :uhuh:

no doubt you'll demand evidence....sooo...just start with the post that you made to open the thread......


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"NRA

I'm surprised nobody has remarked about the quite surreal response by the NRA given after the Newtown tragedy. Even usual conservative papers are drilling into LaPierre for being a nut case.

Why is it that the NRA can't even have an adult conversation about tho topic of gun violence without going into near apoplexy over the notion that a weapon was even at the crime scene?

The NRA has the potential here to add constructive representation to the firearm violence discussion which is going to happen this year like it or not...but this early position I think has done much to hurt their credibility and likely their membership as well.

-spence"


a lot of opinion/hyperbole based in no fact and as for the last sentence...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/nra-membership_n_2449236.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2012/most_feel_safer_with_armed_security_guard_at_child _s_school

Hi Carl - long time :btu:

Legislative interp was meant to infer a lot of legislation has been interpreted and found Constitutional by the Judicial branch. Doubt it's a standard phrase...

And your fundamental premise is as flawed as your lexicon.

Yes, hundreds of state and federal gun control have been challenged and upheld over the last 71 years . . . problem for your side is that the legal support for those decisions has been extinguished.

The "militia right" and state's right" interpretations were inserted into the federal courts in 1942. The First and Third Circuits ignored and dismissed SCOTUS in order to do this. Subsequent gun / 2nd Amendment cases were decided citing this invented "militia right" or "state's right" and the claims of 2ndA rights injury by various and assorted individual American citizens were denied / struck down.

In 2008 Heller slapped the federal courts back into obeying SCOTUS and finally invalidated those perversions . . . So . . . the mass of state and lower federal court decisions resting on that invalid reasoning are now themselves infirm and stand as merely "presumptively lawful".

Scalia's oft quoted:"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 26"


Shouldn't be read divorced from its footnote:

"26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

No doubt was cast because none of those presumptively lawful laws were being examined under Heller's re-affirmed doctrine and the Court in Heller, did not "undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment".

One of the first cases to follow Heller was the California case of Nordyke v King which was re-heard after Heller:
". . . we must first decide whether Heller abrogated Hickman. It did. Hickman rested on our conclusion that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right; Heller squarely overruled such conclusion. . . . Thus the basis for Hickman’s holding has evaporated, and the opinion is clearly irreconcilable with Heller. In such circumstances, we consider our prior decision abrogated by higher authority."

Nordyke v King (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf), pg 4475-4476, (April 20, 2009) (194KB .pdf)

That is what's in store for hundreds of gun control laws that you take for granted right now which rest only on collective / militia / State "right" perversions. As an aside, most of those state cases recognize the root incompatibility of their holdings with the concept of liberty, so they claim that even if the 2ndA does secure an individual right, the 2nd has no force against state laws . . . Well, that is now dead too, post McDonald v Chicago.

I am not overly optimistic that any SCOTUS decision is written in stone, including Heller and Mcdonald. Those were 5 to 4 decisions as are so many nowadays. A matter of one vote can affirm or reverse decisions. Considering what has happened to the rest of the Constitution, ex Bill of Rights, and the constant nibbling even at those rights, I think we have to be reminded that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. I think, also, that vigilance without wisdom or understanding, is merely vigilance by the ignorant. When the people see through a glass darkly, or glasses tinted by the color of a soft tyranny which paints pictures of a benevolent state giving them happiness merely paid for by the price of transferring their awsome burden of responsibility to the State, they are ripe for less soft, harsher tyrannies.

I am not overly optimistic that any SCOTUS decision is written in stone, including Heller and Mcdonald. Those were 5 to 4 decisions as are so many nowadays. A matter of one vote can affirm or reverse decisions.

But what is left to reverse in Heller?

Both dissents rely on twisted logic and hiding from sight many fundamental tenets of the Constitution that the Court has settled long ago and are not open to revisiting.

Both dissents agree that the right secured by the 2nd is an individual right, possessed and enforceable by individuals but they each embrace a "militia conditioned individual right" model. This theory is just the latest in a series of endless step backs from more restrictive interpretive mutations. As each previous layer is torn away and discarded the anti-individual right side just embraces a new restrictive model and present it as the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Typical shape-shifting leftists that we are forced to endure . . .

The original, "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations inserted in the federal courts in 1942 which only served to completely extinguish the individual right interpretation, are dead; there is no going back to them. The flesh has been flayed off those theories to the point where now just a couple bones (the "militia conditioned individual right) are being rattled and shaken by the leftist Witch Doctors to try to scare away the the "individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia" interpretation. Well, it isn't going to work.

Breyer's and Stevens' dissents, like most treatises advocating for a restrictive interpretation, focus on what the 2nd Amendment isn't and what it doesn't do . . . Rare indeed is any explanation of what the 2nd does under their interpretation and how it has functioned with that action in the courts. Of course there is no such record to cite; theirs is just a grand thought experiment that can't withstand scrutiny.

This theory that the dissents are arguing is just the very last straw to grasp before the entire anti-individual right camp is discarded into the "flat-earth" bin . . .

And your fundamental premise is as flawed as your lexicon.
My lexicon is not flawed. Judges interpret legislation to test adherence to the Constitution.

Yes, hundreds of state and federal gun control have been challenged and upheld over the last 71 years . . . problem for your side is that the legal support for those decisions has been extinguished.

The "militia right" and state's right" interpretations were inserted into the federal courts in 1942. The First and Third Circuits ignored and dismissed SCOTUS in order to do this. Subsequent gun / 2nd Amendment cases were decided citing this invented "militia right" or "state's right" and the claims of 2ndA rights injury by various and assorted individual American citizens were denied / struck down.

In 2008 Heller slapped the federal courts back into obeying SCOTUS and finally invalidated those perversions . . . So . . . the mass of state and lower federal court decisions resting on that invalid reasoning are now themselves infirm and stand as merely "presumptively lawful".

People say the big deal about Heller was the validation of the individual right but I'm not so sure. The idea of the a militia at the time of the Constitution was made up of individuals who would bring the guns they'd use for hunting or personal protection into service with them. The individual right to own has always been there, it just hasn't been explicitly validated, what to own or for what purpose is still an open question.

Scalia's oft quoted:"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 26"


Shouldn't be read divorced from its footnote:

"26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."


No doubt was cast because none of those presumptively lawful laws were being examined under Heller's re-affirmed doctrine and the Court in Heller, did not "undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment".
You're spinning the footnote.

That the research was not "exhaustive" is irrelevant as the opinion is very clear in it's support for Miller. To say they didn't contest because that was outside of the case would be wrong as the opinion appears to endorse previous judgements.

One of the first cases to follow Heller was the California case of Nordyke v King which was re-heard after Heller:
". . . we must first decide whether Heller abrogated Hickman. It did. Hickman rested on our conclusion that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right; Heller squarely overruled such conclusion. . . . Thus the basis for Hickman’s holding has evaporated, and the opinion is clearly irreconcilable with Heller. In such circumstances, we consider our prior decision abrogated by higher authority."

Nordyke v King (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf), pg 4475-4476, (April 20, 2009) (194KB .pdf)

You're mixing cut and pastes together.

That is what's in store for hundreds of gun control laws that you take for granted right now which rest only on collective / militia / State "right" perversions. As an aside, most of those state cases recognize the root incompatibility of their holdings with the concept of liberty, so they claim that even if the 2ndA does secure an individual right, the 2nd has no force against state laws . . . Well, that is now dead too, post McDonald v Chicago.
What's significant about these cases is also what's not significant. Yes, by narrow margin they established that common firearms can't be totally banned and that States must adhere to the Second Amendment...but beyond that don't expand on what that really means in any new way.

The idea that the potential is now there to invalidate all gun laws is pretty absurd and generally runs against public opinion.

-spence

Breyer's and Stevens' dissents, like most treatises advocating for a restrictive interpretation, focus on what the 2nd Amendment isn't and what it doesn't do . . . Rare indeed is any explanation of what the 2nd does under their interpretation and how it has functioned with that action in the courts. Of course there is no such record to cite; theirs is just a grand thought experiment that can't withstand scrutiny.
That's simply not true. Seven's dissent on Heller is quite lucid and describes precisely what they believe the Second Amendment to be.

-spence

My lexicon is not flawed. Judges interpret legislation to test adherence to the Constitution.

I was having a laugh at your expense, re: your exchange with Scott and the ungoogleability of the words you were using . . . LOL

People say the big deal about Heller was the validation of the individual right but I'm not so sure.

The reaffirming of the individual right was not new or remarkable nor did it upset any Supreme Court precedent. What it did do was invalidate the "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations established by U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) and Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) respectively. Those new interpretations forced gun rights / 2nd Amendment jurisprudence off the constitutional rail between 1942 and 2008. Every case decided between those dates that use the "militia right" or "state's right" (or as we have seen in Nordyke citing Hickman, the catch all "collective right") are now infirm which means the laws that they upheld on those grounds are now infirm.

Those decisions are like a group of drunks all leaning on one another leaning on the same lamppost. . . Heller knocked the lamp post down . . .

The individual right to own has always been there, it just hasn't been explicitly validated, what to own or for what purpose is still an open question.

Of course it has been established. Miller did that and Heller follows that lead. The hyperbolic explanation of what Miller set out was the justification for the Cases court to invent the "militia right" out of thin air." . . . if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result."

Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/gunviol/docs/cases.authcheckdam.pdf) (1 st Cir. 1942) (40K pdf)
You're spinning the footnote.

Not really. Circuit courts are still examining what should be unimpeachable felon dispossession statutes and Heller's "presumptively lawful" statement is why. Felon dispossession statutes do not rely on the "militia right" or "state's right" interpretations of the 2nd Amendment so they have passed constitutional muster but Heller does direct these Courts to hear argument that "presumptively lawful" restrictions fail constitutional muster:"As the Government concedes, Heller’s statement regarding the presumptive validity of felon gun dispossession statutes does not foreclose Barton’s as-applied challenge. By describing the felon disarmament ban as “presumptively” lawful, the Supreme Court implied that the presumption may be rebutted."

U.S. v. Barton (http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2011//092211p.pdf), 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011) (58kb pdf) (internal citation removed)

Pretend all you want but when laws upheld with cites to Tot or Cases (or later cases Stevens or Warin etc, etc citing Tot or Cases) come before any court, they will fall.

That the research was not "exhaustive" is irrelevant as the opinion is very clear in it's support for Miller. To say they didn't contest because that was outside of the case would be wrong as the opinion appears to endorse previous judgements.

Previous Supreme Court decisions . . . I am talking about lower federal and state court decisions post Cases and Tot that used the "militia right" and "state's right" to sustain the constitutionality of gun control laws contested on 2nd Amendment grounds . . . The premise of those holdings has been invalidated by higher authority (and were in fact invalid when Cases and Tot inserted them into the federal court system but that's another discussion).

You're mixing cut and pastes together.


No, I'm not, but please, feel free to point out and explain my error . . .
What's significant about these cases is also what's not significant. Yes, by narrow margin they established that common firearms can't be totally banned and that States must adhere to the Second Amendment...but beyond that don't expand on what that really means in any new way.

If you don't appreciate the significance of having the 2nd Amendment applied to state action then I guess you will never 'get it'. What do you think the implications are for a state like NJ which has no right to arms provisions in its own Constitution and the state legislature has taken that to mean anything goes?

Especially given the fact that nearly all NJ's draconian gun control was affirmed in a single state supreme court case that relies totally on the "militia right" theory and that the 2nd is not an impediment to the NJ state legislature.

The idea that the potential is now there to invalidate all gun laws is pretty absurd and generally runs against public opinion.

In a constitutional republic, public opinion has absolutely no bearing on the rights of the citizen."The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)
.

But what is left to reverse in Heller?



Not so much "what" is left, but "who" is left to do so. If one of the five concurring justices had previously died and Obama had appointed another Kagan or Soto Mayor type, what do you think the Heller decision would have been? He may well be able to appoint a couple of justices in his final term. Then we may have a period when the Constitution is "subject" to those "liberal interpretations," which Spence speaks of.

The 1994 sweep didn't happen because of the assault weapons ban, if anything that was a late sideshow...the GOP was successful because they ran against excess attributed to longstanding control by Dem's and the Contract With America.

Bill Clinton stated in his own memoirs that the 1994 sweep by the Republicans was a direct result of the Federal Assault Weapon ban. No disrespect spence, but I put more stock in the opinion of the person who was President during the political situation at the time over yours.

(edit: I tried to find a citation available online but you'll just have to read the book if anyone disagrees that Clinton made that statement.)
I assume you meant plausible denialability?

-spence
I did. That's what I get for using dictation software and not proofreading.