NRA

[Nebe]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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?

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

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

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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?

[Nebe]

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

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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?

Originally Posted by Nebe

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).

[scottw]

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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][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][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][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][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]

While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In 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][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]Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

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) 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.

Originally Posted by spence

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).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?

[Nebe]

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
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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????

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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"

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

[Nebe]

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

[Pete F.]

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

[Nebe]

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

Can I get one of these

[scottw]

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....

[buckman]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Can I get one of these

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

[buckman]

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 in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.