assault rifles

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

C: panic causes more panic causes a heightened heart rate which reduces combat readiness and ability to make snap judgements along with less accurate shots

The likelyhood in that situation of hitting ONLY the shooter for the average concealed carry are very very low.

"panic causes more panic causes a heightened heart rate which reduces combat readiness and ability to make snap judgements along with less accurate shots"

Yeah, I guess that explains why all those American teenagers shot each other up, and therefore lost, at Iwo Jima and Normandy.

"The likelyhood in that situation of hitting ONLY the shooter for the average concealed carry are very very low"

Likwid, if I'm in that theater, and I do not have a gun, then I am at the mercy of someone who is merciless. If I have a gun, I have a chance. Maybe not a great chance, but that's better than no chance.

It's funny that I'm supporting this, since I won't keep a gun in my house, not with little kids. I fail to see how a gun can be (1) close enough to be ready if I need it in a hurry, and (2) still safe from my kids.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

A motivated individual will do what they want despite any threat or laws.

VT shoot proves that

VT does not prove your point at all, because there was no threat to the gunman. From what I recall, the VT campus was a weapon-free place, meaning even the security guards are unarmed. What VT proved, is that if only the lunatic is armed, that's not a good scenario.

I notice that these shooting sprees never take place at the local gun club. I wonder why that is?

I'm sure these things would continue to take place even if these weapons were banned. You can't eradicate evil. You were 100% correct on that Likiwid. Bad things happen, it's just a way of life.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by PaulS

To the proponents, is it absoult or are you worried about a slippery slope (auto, semi auto, rifle, etc.) and how about anciliary products (cop killer bullets, mag. that can hold 100 bullets, etc.)

Thanks

To answer your question, it is an absolute.

Now, to further my point that this thread is filled with misunderstandings: what exactly is a "cop killer bullet"?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns"

So do cars. But cars and beer are not as inherently dangerous as firearms.

So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives, we're concerned with arbitrarily outlawing what appears most dangerous and is scariest? My point is, if we're going to start banning things on the premise of "that's dangerous and no reasonable person needs access to that" then we should ban guns, alcohol, cars that travel faster than 30 MPH, skydiving, ice skating on ponds, tobacco products, refined sugars and any number of other items and activities that cause harm.

"There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm"

Yes. And I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles. Not assault rifles. I include an AR-15 with a 60(?) round magazine as an 'assault rifle'.

So now we're doing exactly as the politicians do and slapping whatever definition we want on the terms? So what's the magazine size-limit that will decrease the number of deaths and make a semi-auto AR-15 *not* an assault rifle? It takes all of 2 seconds to change out a magazine. He's a guy that changes out six 10-round magazines in under 20 seconds:


Let's also keep in mind that AR-15's are becoming a standard for modern-day hunting rifles. Their modular design allows for the flexibility of a person to buy one receiver and switch out the upper for the game being hunted. So in your "I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles", you're right and semi-auto AR-15s should be grouped in the "hunting rifle" category. I own a mil-surplus 1943 Swiss K31. Was standard issue to all Swiss citizens during WWII. It *is* (or was rather) a military weapon. Later this year or next, I plan on using it down in FL to boar hunt with. It is bolt-action, has a 7 round magazine and an effective range of over 800 meters. Is it an assault rifle or a hunting rifle?

Some people today think that every rifle with a black synthetic stock is an "assault weapon".

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

and JD, while spence was being a condesending ass, he does have a point regarding the source of the article...

Unfortunately, if spence disagrees with you his "point" and condescension are one in the same.

I could say exactly the same with all of spence's "from what I've read", "what I've seen" and other unsupported, obtuse comments.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Unfortunately, if spence disagrees with you his "point" and condescension are one in the same.

I could say exactly the same with all of spence's "from what I've read", "what I've seen" and other unsupported, obtuse comments.

The point remains...
In science it is pretty standard to want to know not only what is said, but who said it, and who funded it....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

To answer your question, it is an absolute.

Now, to further my point that this thread is filled with misunderstandings: what exactly is a "cop killer bullet"?


So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives, we're concerned with arbitrarily outlawing what appears most dangerous and is scariest? My point is, if we're going to start banning things on the premise of "that's dangerous and no reasonable person needs access to that" then we should ban guns, alcohol, cars that travel faster than 30 MPH, skydiving, ice skating on ponds, tobacco products, refined sugars and any number of other items and activities that cause harm.


So now we're doing exactly as the politicians do and slapping whatever definition we want on the terms? So what's the magazine size-limit that will decrease the number of deaths and make a semi-auto AR-15 *not* an assault rifle? It takes all of 2 seconds to change out a magazine. He's a guy that changes out six 10-round magazines in under 20 seconds:


Let's also keep in mind that AR-15's are becoming a standard for modern-day hunting rifles. Their modular design allows for the flexibility of a person to buy one receiver and switch out the upper for the game being hunted. So in your "I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles", you're right and semi-auto AR-15s should be grouped in the "hunting rifle" category. I own a mil-surplus 1943 Swiss K31. Was standard issue to all Swiss citizens during WWII. It *is* (or was rather) a military weapon. Later this year or next, I plan on using it down in FL to boar hunt with. It is bolt-action, has a 7 round magazine and an effective range of over 800 meters. Is it an assault rifle or a hunting rifle?

Some people today think that every rifle with a black synthetic stock is an "assault weapon".

"So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives"

Wrong. I never said I'm not concerned with DUI laws, or laws that discourage other risky driving habits. And I agree 100% that laws banning texting while driving, and mandatory seat-belt laws, will save more lives than laws banning assault rifles.

But I don't see that we have to choose one or the other. Why can't we talk about both? Why do you assume that if I'm talking about assault rifles, that automatically means that I don't support safe driving laws?

You have an absolutely valid point that I may be over-reacting to something that looks more threatening than it actually is. That's probably my knee-jerk reaction to ths shooting.

I still feel most guys who own these weapons are trying to compensate for some other physical shortcoming.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either, why do we assume that things will always go to an extreme? I love grizzly bears, been to Alaska twice to see them. But I like laws that ban keeping them as pets. I'm not concerned that if the feds today tell me I can't have a grizzly bear, that tomorrow they're going to take away my golden retriever.

Johnny, a lot of the things you said would be banned next (like skydiving) are not exactly the same. If I go skydiving, I'm taking on the risk myself. The only person at risk is me, and it's my choice to go skydiving.

If my next-door neighbor buys an assault rifle, I feel like my kids are in a little bit of danger, and it wasn't any of my choosing.

Apples and oranges, no?

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Now, to further my point that this thread is filled with misunderstandings: what exactly is a "cop killer bullet"?

Hollow point armour piercing.

[Jackbass]

I worked for a very large shop in MA at the time of the Brady bill. The day it passed every AR SKS Glock Spas etc went up in price. Then we ordered all of the large capacity magazines we could get our hands on. Considering the parent company was the distributor we had more than we thought we would need.

Every para military "tactical guy" In a 100 mile radius called and came to get the stuff. Some thought they would be a me to turn em around for a hefty profit in 2 years when people could t get them retail. My guess is the mags are still on a shelf somewhere collecting dust.

I never was into the stuff I could care less of your average citizen wants to blow through 150 dollars in ammo on Sunday in three minutes. If that is what you are into more power to you.

It is my opinion that these shootings would. E just as devastating if the individual had a 357 revolver and reloaders. The people caught in these situations are probably shocked that it is happening first and then scared to death that it is happening. More often than not flight as opposed to fight wod kick in if you are not trained in how to handle a situation like this. How many are truly trained to handle a situation like Aurora?

Ban them or not it will still happen. It is not the guns it is the individual perpetrating the act that creates the problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.

I see two parts to this discussion, one being the slippery slope of increasing government regulation, the other being the risks we take for our freedoms.
The slippery slope is true in my opinion, the legislators say we are only going to___________ and that is what they do at that time, the next time it comes up they say the same thing not recalling that the basis was all they were going to do. Examples: Taxes, seat belts, etc.
The risks we take for our freedoms are also part of this discussion, if you want limited risk and someone to control yours and others actions there are places in the world you can live.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

You didn't answer my question.

-spence

I never made one comment about the ar-15. I have no clue what type of gun it is.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have an absolutely valid point that I may be over-reacting to something that looks more threatening than it actually is. That's probably my knee-jerk reaction to ths shooting.

Probably, but you would be the best judge, if your honest, of why you are reacting.

I still feel most guys who own these weapons are trying to compensate for some other physical shortcoming.

But you would not be the best judge on other peoples actions or reactions.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either, why do we assume that things will always go to an extreme? I love grizzly bears, been to Alaska twice to see them. But I like laws that ban keeping them as pets. I'm not concerned that if the feds today tell me I can't have a grizzly bear, that tomorrow they're going to take away my golden retriever.

Be concerned first, if the feds are doing what is legitimately in their power to do rather than trampling on either inalienable or constitutional rights. And if the feds legally have the right to take away your golden retriever they have the power to take most anything from you. And if you allow, as a society, the feds to deny you any right, they have power to deny you all rights. If you are going to go on feelings and knee jerk reactions rather than principles, you have abandoned principle and opened the door to your subjection to any whim of the feds.

Johnny, a lot of the things you said would be banned next (like skydiving) are not exactly the same. If I go skydiving, I'm taking on the risk myself. The only person at risk is me, and it's my choice to go skydiving.

If the feds have the power to tax your risk taking, such as not buying health insurance, they have power to tax your skydiving. They could make it expensive enough to discourage your risk taking. It's for your own, and society's good, after all. Freedom is frought with risks. It is attractive for many to give up freedoms for safety. And all you need is confidence that the fedgov knows what's best for you and will always do that best.

If my next-door neighbor buys an assault rifle, I feel like my kids are in a little bit of danger, and it wasn't any of my choosing.

Generally, when one feels his neighbor is a little, or a lot, "off," one feels like his kids are in a little bit, or more, of danger. And your neighbors "offness" is not of your choosing. You might be more concerned with your neighbor's mental stability and character than what he owns. And if you choose to remain next door to him, you might want to arm yourself, in your best way of choice, to protect your kids.

Apples and oranges, no?

Are you in a little bit of danger if he owns any other gun? Is it only the assault rifle that puts your kids in danger?

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.

Could your last sentence not apply to any gun?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Could your last sentence not apply to any gun?

Yes, it could, to a different degree. Detbuch, do you deny that assault rifles are inherently more dangerous than handguns? Assault rifles don't allow murderers to kill more people than handguns? Do we really need to have that discussion? If that's what you're saying, allow me to ask you the same thing I asked Likwid (who chose not to answer). When soldiers stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, how many do you think were holding their handguns, and how many do you think were holding their rifles? When my unit was attacked in Iraq, every guy under my command had a standard-issue handgun. Do you know how many of them dropped their rifles and grabbed their handguns? Exactly zero. Why do you suppose that is?

"And if you allow, as a society, the feds to deny you any right, they have power to deny you all rights."

I hear pro-gun zealots talk about the necessity of guns to keep the feds at bay. In this country, I'm not sure that passes the common-sense test. If anything, it sounds delusionally paranoid. If someone wants a gun for hunting, that's one thing. If someone thinks they need a gun to keep the 82nd Airborne off their property, I assume that's a guy who wears a tin-foil hat so that the aliens can't control his thoughts or eat his brain.

I don't want my kids to live next door to someone with an assault rifle, or any other automatic weapon. If my neighbor is disturbed, my kids are less safe, you are correct.

Detbuch, if my neighbor is deranged but un-armed, that's one thing. If my neighbor is deranged (or even simply careless, or stupid) but has an assault rifle, do you disagree that represents a different threat to my kids? Seriously?

If you want to tell me the Constitution guarantees the right to buy an assault rifle, you have a compelling case, I have read the 2nd amendment. If you're telling me that assault rifles are not capable of significantly escalating the danger of any situation, I think you are 100% wrong.

[Pete F.]

"Assault" rifles as sold to John Q. Public are not automatic weapons.

Civilian ownership of assault rifles or any other full-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the BATFE before May 1986. Some states have enacted laws against civilian possession of automatic weapons that override NFA clearance; Kansas, on the other hand, repealed its own state law against civilian ownership of assault rifles in July 2008.[22] Civilians may purchase semi-automatic versions of such firearms without requiring NFA clearance, although some states (including California and New Jersey) enforce their own restrictions and/or prohibitions on such weapons.
Of course if you are in New Bedford you might have reason to worry since the cops have been losing their real assault rifles.

[FishermanTim]

Hey, here's a novel approach: why not ban all idiot psychos that lose their minds in some idiotic fantasy world?
Seems that the gun issue is only a secondary concern since this wacho could have easily booby trapped some other building an killed many more people if he didn't have guns.

So a crazy man got some weapons? Go after the person that supplied him with them. Apply the gun laws that already exist, and stop trying to change them to fit this one scenario.

Why didn't anyone notice this guys drastic change of personality?
If he was a "loner" that kept to himself, maybe they could request a psyche evaluation when applying for or renewing a gun permit or FID card?

Why won't the mental stability (or lack of) be considered MORE of a driving factor? Because we have become a spineless society that doesn't want to offend ANYONE, ever to the extent of our own safety!!!

Keep the guns, maybe be more aware of the type of ammo being purchased, and be MORE aware of the mental state of the person buying the weapon(s).

AS for the car comparison, I'd say that if the operator of any device, be it gun, cannon, car, bike, boat or even plane does so while willingly impaired, THEY are at fault and not the device.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Hollow point armour piercing.

Paul, I sincerely mean this respectfully but this response demonstrates that conclusions are made based on completely inaccurate information. Couple things, the common full metal jacket bullet has a better penetration ability than hollow-point rounds. Hollow-points are designed to flatten out and transfer the maximum amount of energy into whatever it penetrates. However, from what I understand, this design to "flatten" also makes hollow-points *less* effective than common full metal jacket rounds at piercing bullet-proof vests.

"Hollow point armor piercing" is a load of hogwash created through propaganda and holds no actual credibility.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"So we're not concerned with actions that actually save the most lives"

Wrong. I never said I'm not concerned with DUI laws, or laws that discourage other risky driving habits. And I agree 100% that laws banning texting while driving, and mandatory seat-belt laws, will save more lives than laws banning assault rifles.

But I don't see that we have to choose one or the other. Why can't we talk about both? Why do you assume that if I'm talking about assault rifles, that automatically means that I don't support safe driving laws?

I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not a slippery slope argument or either-or argument. What I'm saying is that on the premise of outlawing things based on their danger and a lack of perceived "need", then the same people that thinks a 60rd magazine should be banned because no one "needs" them should also support making alcohol illegal.

My point comes down to a lack of priorities. People keep saying, "we need to outlaw these guns because they kill people." Then I say we should outlaw alcohol because it kills people, causes addition and is frequently a factor in sexual assaults.

You have an absolutely valid point that I may be over-reacting to something that looks more threatening than it actually is. That's probably my knee-jerk reaction to ths shooting.

I still feel most guys who own these weapons are trying to compensate for some other physical shortcoming.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either, why do we assume that things will always go to an extreme? I love grizzly bears, been to Alaska twice to see them. But I like laws that ban keeping them as pets. I'm not concerned that if the feds today tell me I can't have a grizzly bear, that tomorrow they're going to take away my golden retriever.

Johnny, a lot of the things you said would be banned next (like skydiving) are not exactly the same. If I go skydiving, I'm taking on the risk myself. The only person at risk is me, and it's my choice to go skydiving.

Just to reemphasize the above, I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument. I'm not saying that if we let big brother outlaw specific guns, that any at-risk activities will be banned. My argument is based more on the premise of how people are justifying the reasons arbitrary aspects to firearms should be banned.

You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.

You've mentioned a few times that you're conflicted about the whole situation and I think it's because there's an emotional and rational response that are in conflict. Emotionally, you think "these things are bad and people shouldn't have access to them." Rationally, you think "do we really want the government imposing more restrictions on the American public? and if they do, would those restrictions even be effective?" Or I'm completely off-base

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, it could, to a different degree. Detbuch, do you deny that assault rifles are inherently more dangerous than handguns? Assault rifles don't allow murderers to kill more people than handguns? Do we really need to have that discussion? If that's what you're saying, allow me to ask you the same thing I asked Likwid (who chose not to answer). When soldiers stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, how many do you think were holding their handguns, and how many do you
think were holding their rifles? When my unit was attacked in Iraq, every guy under my command had a standard-issue handgun. Do you know how many of them dropped their rifles and grabbed their handguns? Exactly zero. Why do you suppose that is?

I have not stated nor implied that assault weapons or rifles are less or as equally "dangerous" than hand guns. I have implied just the opposite in my previous two posts in this thread, especially when I asked what if all the Jews of Germany during Nazi power were armed with assault weapons and sufficient ammo? That might have led to an easier task, if necessary, when our troops stormed the beaches of Normandy.

"And if you allow, as a society, the feds to deny you any right, they have power to deny you all rights."

I hear pro-gun zealots talk about the necessity of guns to keep the feds at bay. In this country, I'm not sure that passes the common-sense test. If anything, it sounds delusionally paranoid. If someone wants a gun for hunting, that's one thing. If someone thinks they need a gun to keep the 82nd Airborne off their property, I assume that's a guy who wears a tin-foil hat so that the aliens can't control his thoughts or eat his brain.

One might then say the rebels of our revolution were delusionally paranoid. They took on the greatest military might of their time, and even half of their neighbors not only didn't support them, they openly fought them and gave aid and comfort to the British. If you assume that you have no chance from the start, much will never be accomplished. Might it be more difficult now, maybe so, but that's what the second ammendment is for, not hunting. And it surely would not be possible without a commitment to liberty and the virtue to stand up for that principle.

I don't want my kids to live next door to someone with an assault rifle, or any other automatic weapon. If my neighbor is disturbed, my kids are less safe, you are correct.

You're entitled to your personal desires, but how does that trump your neighbor's desires?

Detbuch, if my neighbor is deranged but un-armed, that's one thing. If my neighbor is deranged (or even simply careless, or stupid) but has an assault rifle, do you disagree that represents a different threat to my kids? Seriously?

Yes, that's one thing. Every thing is one thing, different than all the other one things. What is the principle behind banning things simply because they are different?

If you want to tell me the Constitution guarantees the right to buy an assault rifle, you have a compelling case, I have read the 2nd amendment. If you're telling me that assault rifles are not capable of significantly escalating the danger of any situation, I think you are 100% wrong.

I am telling you no such thing. On the contrary, if you wish to protect yourself against a tryrannical government, then you and your cohorts must have the firepower that can escalate the danger to your enemy--just as the troops who stormed the beaches of Normandy had. If you think you would be able to do that with handguns, I think you are 100% wrong.

The argument about alllowing some guns but not others because some are less dangerous is puzzling to me. If you can kill 10 or 30 people quickly, that's a no-no, but if you can only kill one or two or five in the same amount of time, that's OK.

[PRBuzz]

Get real: people will kill people!!!! Worldwide the weapon of choice is probably sticks & stones and the main reason is differences in religious beliefs!

Are we to ban sticks, stones, etc? How about religion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[GregW]

Originally Posted by likwid

None, nor would I want to be, nor do I have this BS belief that some john wayne is going to pop out and save everyone from the evil doer. I live in reality where people lose their crap and do horrible things and its awful but it happens.

The vietnam vet is right.
A: people freaking the eff out.
B: shooter shooting at pretty much anything that moves
C: panic causes more panic causes a heightened heart rate which reduces combat readiness and ability to make snap judgements along with less accurate shots

The likelyhood in that situation of hitting ONLY the shooter for the average concealed carry are very very low.

I am not even going to get involved in this debate, however this strokes me as incredibly bizarre.....
So his point is invalid because he has never been in a firefight, yet yours is not considering the same. But, you read someone's post online so you are now a subject matter expert in how people will react in a life threatening situation?

[Sea Dangles]

Ted has been grasping at straws recently.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Hmmm . . . What if every Jew in Germany in the 1930's and 40's owned an assault rifle with a whole lot of amunition? And what if they understood what was about to happen to them so refused to surrender their guns? Ah, well, firefights and all . . . you know . . . everbody would be disoriented and wouldn't be able to shoot strait.

I see, so an armed Jewish ghetto would have beaten back the Nazi opposition? That doesn't seem very plausible, it would have just meant a few more dead Nazis.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Nebe's post about the reason for the second ammendment is spot on. Of course, the Constitution is irrelevant nowadays, oudated, not suitable to the modern world, besides, as RIrockhound points out, when the Constititution was written, they had muskets. So even if we did follow the Constitution, the second ammendment would only allow us to own muskets--none of the firearms legally available today would be allowable. Hunters would have to use bow and arrow or muskets or attack the animals with a knife or rock. Anyway, the government can do just about anything it wants now, so what's stopping it from banning these horific weapons since it is so desirous of keeping us from harm, from even harming ourselves? Perhaps the regulators that are flushing out the thousands of pages of regulations for the health care bill can add a regulation outlawing assault weapons. Of course, the purpose of all guns is to kill. Some can kill more and more quickly. Should the regulators have a cutoff number between allowed and banned weapons. Lets say, if you can kill more than 10 people a minute or something like that, the weapon should be outlawed. But doesn't that go against the government's concern about each of our health and well being? Why should a guns ability to kill even one person allow it to be legal. Is the number dead the criteria, not the death itself. Ban them all. Of course, then only criminals would have have guns. So then ban the manufacture of guns. But foreign manufactures coud provide the criminals with guns, and our enemies could overpower our military. So then ban the manufacture of guns worldwide via the U.N. It's considering a worldwide gun control law anyway. Why not just ban the manufacture of guns. Then we could move on to other pesky things that people do and ban those worldwide also.

So is the flip side to make EVERYTHING legal? That appears to be what you're sarcastically advocating.

Where do YOU draw a line?

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Unfortunately, if spence disagrees with you his "point" and condescension are one in the same.

I could say exactly the same with all of spence's "from what I've read", "what I've seen" and other unsupported, obtuse comments.

There's is nothing condescending about calling a out a ridiculous and arrogant remark.

Also, good that I'm getting under your skin without even trying

-spence

[Raven]

Originally Posted by spence

So is the flip side to make EVERYTHING legal? That appears to be what you're sarcastically advocating.

Where do YOU draw a line?

-spence

They just Caught a Guy in MD that had 25 assault rifles and assorted
weapons sittting on 3000 rounds of AMMO....

he was his own gun store for crying out loud

his tee shirt said "Guns don't kill people , I do"

said threateningly to cops

"i wanna go home and load my guns....."

He'll be charged this weekend for numerous violations

my point is: there are extremists out there in the USA

[Nebe]

You can only shoot 2 guns at once.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

I think I'm going to start using TNT to catch bass and claim its just my fishing pole.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I see, so an armed Jewish ghetto would have beaten back the Nazi opposition? That doesn't seem very plausible, it would have just meant a few more dead Nazis.

-spence

There were 600,000 Jews in Germany before the Nazi crackdown and eventual holocaust. Of that, I assume, half would be able to use an assault weapon. The key is for them not only to be armed, but to know what was about to happen to them if they did not leave or forcefully resist. Waiting too late is the mistake we make when we trust but don't verify. The American Founders did not wait too long. They realized early on what was going on and to what it could eventually lead. Furthermore, what if all the Jews in Europe, millions of them, knew what was going to happen to them, and if they were fully armed? And what if all the non-Jews, especially in Eastern Europe knew what was coming and were fully armed? Even if the Nazis could have overcome them, not only would their losses have been huge, the task of the allies would have been greatly easier, and the German war machine would have been defeated fairly quickly. And half of Europe would have been spared the Communist domination that followed the war. But not only were the people not armed, everybody waited too long. The Germans easily took control of unarmed civilians and weak armies in Poland, parts of Czekoslovakia, Austria with the help of Austrians, and made alliances with Italy and Russia and most of the remaining Eastern European countries who were too weak too resist and saw no help from the West forthcoming.

We are very trusting of our government in America. We think it is ridiculous to arm ourselves beyond protection from criminals or for hunting or sport. We didn't start that way, and were originally fearful of a powerful central government. You believe that it is ridiculous to arm ouselves with more powerful weapons, since you obviously feel that we will never need them. It would be very good if you are right. Because we are far along the road, in many respects even other than arms and the second amendment, to waiting too long. The second amendment was given as a means to resistance in the last resort. We can still turn things around to a more constitutional form of government that centers on individual rights and responsibilities. The vote is still a powerful weapon. But ignorance and blind trust can nullify that weapon.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So is the flip side to make EVERYTHING legal? That appears to be what you're sarcastically advocating.

Where do YOU draw a line?

-spence

The flip side to making everything illegal (where did I advocate that) is to make everything legal. I advocate neither. I advocate adherence to the Constitution. You may not have noticed that that is where I draw the line?

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

First, I like the notion that we respect the constitution. And I really don't like the prospect of ignoring parts of the constitution that we don't happen to like.

That is a position that no gun rights supporter can disagree with.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Along those lines, I believe that law-abiding folks ahould have reasonable access to guns for hunting, target shooting, and/or protection.

But that statement could, on it's face be seen as violating your opening sentence or at least setting it up for violation. If we were really concerned with respecting the Constitution we would not be trying to discern what the citizen is allowed to do but discussing what the government is allowed to do.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But I don't get the availability of assault rifles.

The 2nd Amendment was enacted with a very plain and understood object; to ensure the continuation of the general militia concept so that both the states and the federal government would have a ready pool of properly equipped citizens available to aid the civil authority. In times of need, the civil power can summon a large group of citizens at a moments notice and have them muster with appropriate arms and ammunition supplied by themselves and a couple days provisions. That's the primary intent of the 2nd Amendment for as long as the government obeys the Constitution.

Also part of the 2nd Amendment's object is to preserve the fundamental principle that the people retain the final right to rescind their consent to be governed by a government no longer abiding by the principles of its establishment.

The only way for the founders to ensure that those objects could be fulfilled/maintained/preserved was to secure from government's reach the means to achieve those objects; the already existing, individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Amendment does not create, grant, give or otherwise establish the right, it merely recognizes and secures it from government action. The right is not dependent in any manner on the Constitution in general or the 2nd Amendment specifically, for its existence.

Here's where it gets sticky and where it is vitally important that we do respect the Constitution . . . Even though the general right does not depend on the Amendment, SCOTUS has said the levels of government's protection of the right has been framed by the object of the 2nd Amendment's declaration and guarantee.

Long standing case law has inspected this question and has created a criteria to decide if an arm has 2nd Amendment protection. That criteria is, if it is the type of arm currently employed in civilized warfare and that it constitutes the ordinary military equipment and can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizen.

If one were to apply this longstanding criteria without prejudice, the type of arms that have been assigned the moniker of 'assault weapon' are the type of weapon that near absolute 2nd Amendment protection must be applied (deemed 'strict scrutiny' when a law is challenged).

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Only law enforcement and the military are legitimately in need of that ability.

Given the fact that the Federalist's, the promoters of a strong central government, endorsed the principle that whatever federal standing army could be amassed it should be opposed by a ratio of 17-20 armed citizens to 1 soldier, I can hardly agree that government forces should enjoy such an "ability". (Interestingly, Madison's 1788 ratios remain nearly spot-on today; 308 million total souls, 2.9 million active and reserve military, a general militia of 65+ million citizens with arms in their hands)

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's a lot harder to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is to do it with these weapons. If these guns were banned, it seem sto me that we all become a bit safer, and I don't feel that amounts to a significant loss of freedom.

Again, none of that holds legal weight. You would need to demonstrate the source of government's power to do the actions you want.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

As far as the 2nd ammendment, it was written at a time when we had single shot muskets... do you think they would support the right to own fully-auto machine guns? I dunno....

The Aurora shooter did not use a "fully-auto machine gun" . . .

"Fully-auto machine guns" have been regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934.

I find it interesting that Congress knew then that they could not "ban" them.

Hmmmmm . . .

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's embarassing to me that conservatives, as a group, seem to be on the wrong side of thi sissue. In some cases, they are on the wrong side because they take big $$ from the NRA.

I would be interested in hearing a reasoned, well cited argument precisely laying out what the "wrong side" is and what the "correct side" is.

The appeal that it is all about NRA money is as ridiculous as saying that pro-choice people are in it just to kill babies.