Stop the Insanity
Here's an interesting development.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -road.htmlI am very happy to be Canadian!! I have many American friends on facebook. This has been an ongoing debate since the Sandy Hook tragedy. Many, many heated arguments, most against gun control. You have to stop and ask yourself….do you want these people possessing guns. Short tempers, macho bravado personalities, even some of my female friends…..GEEZ! Most of them are musicians, what the hell ever happened to love and peace. This was on Monday night, Piers Morgan and Alex Jones…..good Lord!!! Just what we need: completely off the wall people with guns. This looks like an episode of Jerry Springer, without staging.
http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/a … rol-debateHas it occurred to you that maybe people do not like the possibility of their constitutional rights being stripped? Could it be that we have a constitution that is very clear and a government that ignores it? Don't worry you live in Canada and all us crazy people are just beneath you.
I am not calling you crazy (I knew this was a bad idea), it's just that half of your population owns guns, and from what I gather from the discussions on facebook, many have a whole arsenal. I fail to see the point. But then, I fail to see the point in any violence, being an old hippie. I am probably living in a world of illusion. The big picture has gone to hell!
How does owning weapons make someone violent? I could be considered as someone with an arsenal and have never used my weapons violently. Its ridiculous to even think that. I am not going to try and explain to you why we take our rights seriously, we just do. Sorry your rights mean so little to you that you can't understand.
I'm going to blame this on global warming since we don't usually start the annual freeway shootings until May.
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/breakin … eeway-rampUsually what this turns out to be is "road rage." Two drivers get into it. They both pull off the freeway to "settle their differences" and one of them has a pistol and was way more ticked off than the other driver realized.
I say this because once L.A.P.D. or the Sheriff's Department does a full investigation they'll have found the perp and determined this is what it was. Happens pretty often here.
This is L.A. This happens every year. Last year we had someone with a hunting rifle taking pot shots at drivers on the freeway. He'd (I always assume a male) pick different freeways too. I think he killed one person and frighted heck out of a whole bunch of others. He was never caught.We had an Interstate shooter in Michigan as well. He was caught and will be brought to trial. One individual was injured but no one killed, fortunately.
The 2nd Amendment was as prevalent in the 18th century as it is today, if not more so then. At the time the Constitution was drafted, there were unorganized militias roaming the country. There were unsatisfied Tories, and the British refused to abandon some forts in America until well into the 19th century.
If our founding fathers believed (which they obviously did) that the unstable, brand-spanking-new American society should allow its people to keep and bear arms, then we need to do so as well.
The reasoning for Amendment II was so that we could prevent the country from tyranny, from the government getting too much control. If we let the GOVERNMENT, the same people we're keeping our weapons to protect ourselves FROM, take our main method of defense, then where are we?
No. We need to keep our rights. Obviously, the 2nd Amendment was important, as it was listed right after Freedom of Speech! This gun-control talk is almost like the Alien & Sedition Acts, made only to restrict us! I do think we need to have stricter tests and regulations to protect the mentally insane from using weapons, as they could use them to harm rather than in self-defense, but the mentally stable should be able to keep their defenses.
Going to the comment above, about the "road rage," the angry man with a pistol, and that being L.A.: Do you really think that if he didn't have a gun, that he would be any less angry? If you're crazy enough to shoot somebody because of your "differences," then who's to say you won't use a knife? Or maybe a bomb. The insane will not be stopped from breaking the law just because more laws are put in place. I don't care who you are or what you believe in, realistically, it won't work.Road rage is such a common occurrence here that the motive is actually mentioned in our law. We certainly have had instances where the car or truck became the weapon. But usually if a firearm, specifically a pistol, is used the outcome is far more likely to be deadly.
Can we leave bombs out of the discussion? It's just silly to bring that up since they are so impractical. A knife? Fine, but you have to get close with a knife, not so much with bullets. And yes we do have our share of cutting and stabbing here and though they are sometimes fatal a gun-shot wound is more often fatal than a stab wound. Just the way it is.
All the laws in the world have made little difference. I simply related an incident here that is all too common. I do this so those of you living in rural areas have some idea how often firearms are used here in urban areas.
Finally, statistically, we have almost four million people living in Los Angeles city and almost ten million living in Los Angeles County.
There were slightly more than thirty two thousand crime guns (an ATF designation) captured and traced in 2011 in all of California. Half of all firearm crimes occur in Los Angeles County. That means sixteen thousand guns were used in crimes in 2011. Of that sixteen thousand, hand-guns outnumber rifles by a factor of two and a half to one. In other words for every rifle there are 2.5 pistols.
Of all the crime committed here in Los Angeles County in 2011 about one twentieth of one percent were committed with a firearm. That is an extraordinarily low number.
16,162 / 9,889,056 = 0.16% or not quite one fifth of one percent."the British refused to abandon some forts in America until well into the 19th century."
No, they just didn't abandon them until the Americans showed up to take possession, at which time they marched out and turned the fort over to the Americans without a fuss.
"The reasoning for Amendment II was so that we could prevent the country from tyranny,"
No, the reason for Amendment II was that the founders were suspicious of standing armies, and feared that a standing army would become a tool by which to oppress the people. Therefore, they decided that they'd rely mainly on militia (citizen soldiers) in time of war, and have them go home in time of peace.
"Do you really think that if he didn't have a gun, that he would be any less angry?"
Nope. But he'd be a heck of a lot less able to shoot somebody.
"If you're crazy enough to shoot somebody because of your "differences," then who's to say you won't use a knife?"
Yeah, it's really easy to stab someone on the highway, from your car.
Look, I think the 2nd Amendment is important, too, and banning guns is silly (nobody has proposed a gun ban, by the way).
But if we're going to defend our 2nd Amendment rights, let's do so with actual facts and logical arguments, hm?
Another case of irresponsible gun ownership. This is what really threatens second amendment rights.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33220258/ns … O8LxuS7PTpAnother case of a responsible gun owner protecting her children.
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/moth … ots/nTnGR/
This is just one reason why we need to keep and maintain our Second Amendment Rights.
- Jonesy50posted 11 years ago
0Guns are here to stay, folks. It's the mentally disturbed we need to do something about.
Obama can't make a law that won't be overturned by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional and an executive order can't override a law or the Constitution.
If he tries, we'll just impeach him then go after all of those that supported it.
It's time we woke up and made the politicians and the leftists in this country realize we have a Constitution, rights, and laws and they are NOT above them.The mentally disturbed? You mean like this guy?
I agree--people like this guy probably ought to be locked up, as a danger to themselves and others.
"Obama can't make a law that won't be overturned by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional..."
Sure he could. There are plenty of laws that limit (or rather, establish responsibilities that go with) our rights, and they've been upheld as constitutional.
You can't libel someone, even though we have freedom of the press.
You can't slander someone, even though we have freedom of speech.
We have the right peaceably to assemble, but we can't do it on Main Street at rush hour: we have to get a permit for large public gatherings.
These limitations on our rights, and others like them, are part of the price we pay to live in a civil society, and most adults understand this.Yeah, I'll have to agree. He's more than a little over the top and not a good representative for the pro-gun side.
I understand where you're coming from, Jeff, but limits aren't what Obama wants. I think he wants to do away with the Constitution altogether. You may not agree but you probably didn't trust Bush either. Multiply that by a thousand and you have how I feel about Barack Obama.
I'm not one of these people who will shoot a LEO or soldier if they show up to take my guns but they can't take what they can't find either. I honestly don't think that will happen but there are plans in place."I understand where you're coming from, Jeff, but limits aren't what Obama wants. I think he wants to do away with the Constitution altogether."
Then you're not worth talking to: you've decided that folks who disagree with you are evil, and that makes you a Big Part of the Problem.Ahhh, I see. I disagree with your guy in the White House so I'm not worth talking to. Okay. Not very adult but okay.
I didn't say Obama was evil, Jeff, but I do think he wants to do away with the Constitution. Last I checked, I am allowed to disagree with Barack Obama and you. Has freedom of speech been repealed as well or is that reserved for just people like Piers Morgan and yourself?Jonsey50 what do you base this accusation on? Do you know that just last week President Obama verified an executive order signed last year allowing over 84,000 M1 Garands to be brought in from South Korea so arms dealers here can sell them?
They are still negotiating over the 110,000 M1 Carbines, but he'll likely approve that soon too.
That doesn't strike me as very anti-gun.
http://www.ammoland.com/2012/04/korea-t … z2Hc5gEwZgObama remains committed to assault weapons ban, White House says
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/politics/ … index.html
Obama Vows Fast Action in New Push for Gun Control
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/po … l&_r=0
Barack Obama on Gun Control
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/bar … ontrol.htm
This is when he was still tap dancing on the subject of gun control whike he was running for office.
http://2012.presidential-candidates.org … ontrol.php
"Ahhh, I see. I disagree with your guy in the White House so I'm not worth talking to."
No, disagreeing with the guy in the White House is all good.
Making up paranoid carp about him wanting to do away with the Constitution makes you an ideologue with nothing to say worth listening to.
By the by, do you gun-worshippers have any idea how utterly stucking fupid you sound to us rational people?First, I worship my Savior, Jesus Christ, not guns, Jeff.
Just what do you call what Obama is doing to this country and it's Constitution?
I can tell you don't see just how stupid Liberals look to Conservatives. Liberals look like zombie sheep drinking at the Liberal BS Kool-Aide trough. Conservatives see it as a problem when sheepeople are so willing to give away our rights as a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy or to further a political agenda. If that makes me an ideologue, so be it, but Liberals better realize something. There's a whole lot more of us than they think and we won't go down without a fight.
I can tell you're your own man, Jeff, and don't follow blindly the liberal bent. I'm not the typical Conservative as I also tend to be something of a rebel and have some liberal views. We may not agree on Obama and what he's doing, but if you'll dial back the attitude, you'll find out we can discuss things a whole more civilly than you've been doing so far. Just saying.
Of course you didn't say that, but it doesn't matter, the lefts agenda is to do away with the second amendment and anything or anyone that stands in the way needs to be destroyed. Don't use logic to try and refute them they wont use logic, it has to be emotion that leads the way. Children die everyday in Chicago from gun violence and nobody says a word, they wont let this tragedy in Connecticut go to waste.
I'm using logic and, in the process, being nice as well, lest I be suspended or banned. Believe me, it's not easy when I don't understand why they can't wrap their heads around the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I will say I think Jeff gets it but he is being combative for some reason. Perhaps he doesn't like me
or he's having a bad day. Either way, he's not the bad guy.
- Jonesy50posted 11 years ago0
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
- Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Here's my favorite part: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Will someone please tell me why the liberals/leftists/Dems can't wrap their heads around that?
I mean I would write it in crayon for them if I could but I'm not sure it would help.Love this! and I love that you want to write it in crayon. They want us to be a defenseless nation where only the government has guns....pretty rediculous. I dont think it will happen this way. They try and take away guns they will have an uprising against them of those who will NEVER give up their rights to bear arms!
I think the U.S. has been a violent nation right from it's beginnings. Native Americans already lived here. They taught the newcomers how to grow crops, how to survive, and got killed by the newcomers as thanks.
Then we had the whole cowboy and indian culture where it seems everyone was shooting out their differences at the saloon. This was glorified, just as war was in WW1 and WW2. I'm not getting into an antiwar issue here, just saying that even today when we watch the History Channel, war is glorified and it makes it seem that to "be a Man" you have to have been to war. Now we have women in war too.
Our society has come far since then, but America is still a relatively new nation. It is changing. We do not need to shoot our food now (though I have friends who bow hunt and like to, and I think that's a more fair way to hunt). But maybe our Constitution should reflect some of the changes.
No regular citizen should be able to have a gun that just can be aimed recklessly and gun down 20 or more people. It's ridiculous. If I hear "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" once more, I'll scream.
I do have concerns that a time may come when we may have to protect ourselves from our own government. But i don't think arming more people is a solution either. My son is a teacher, and I don't think teachers should be armed at all. I do think each school should have an armed guard, but teachers have enough to do teaching. When I was in HS, we had armed narcotics officers, 2 of them, but it was a large school of 3,000 kids at at time when there were a lot of drugs around. The 1970's.
If everyone is armed, we can't just keep getting in shootouts in parking lots on bad days when we have short tempers. It could come to that if we keep getting desensitized to violence. Why do you think people come home from war and are so traumatized they either don't speak or hold it all in until they commit suicide? It's a hard issue. I don't think guns should be taken from everyone. But hunters and people who shoot for recreation at a range don't need to have guns that fire so many rounds so fast. I realize criminals will get guns anyway, but that's no excuse not to try to disarm dangerous people.
I used to think all guns should be banned, but I've seen arguments here from intelligent people that made me think about it, and some people are capable of being armed and not dangerous. But it has to be decided who they are. And once the government gets involved more, they usually mess up. I don't know the answers, but can't stand any more of these innocent kids getting killed by maniacs. Even now, after all these years, parents who lost kids in Columbine are commiting suicide, and so are the kids who were locked down for all those hours with all those dead bodies. That's another thing, the cops wait too long to go in. I always tell my son get the hell out and keep your class safe, and face the consequences later. He says he will die saving his class, but I don't want him to be a hero like that.Jean, first, thank you to your son for what he does. It takes a special person to be a teacher.
You've made several excellent points here. I sometimes wrestle with the high-power rifles with 30-round clips being in the hands of civilians myself. I, Personally, don't see a need for them and don't own one but in what I've seen of "the list," it looks like they're coming after the pistol I carry for personal-protection as well. It carries 16 in the mag plus one in the chamber and is 9MM.
I carry for personal reasons I won't get into here. To do so, I went through background checks with the FBI, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, and local law enforcement as required by my state, Tennessee. This was after taking a required class and qualifying on a shooting range.
It's hard to know what the answers are but I do think simply banning certain guns won't work. Trying to take them away will possibly cause a civil war and most certainly an outcry for a president's impeachment.
Some on here probably think I'm radical in my thinking about this but I can assure them I'm a whole lot more conservative in my tone than a lot of people I know. Taking away our Second Amendment Rights will cause far more problems and, in some cases, more violence than they realize. Unfortunately, the Dems are like rabid dogs when it comes to their political agenda and, honestly, one day it's going to bite them in a very tender spot.
Your son's attitude toward his students is admirable. I do my best to avoid bad areas and situations but it's the same attitude I have when I put on my pistol before taking my family out. I would die for them. If they take away my Second Amendment Rights, it just makes it more likely they'll die along with me.
part of a prayer I copied off Facebook from the mom of Ana Marquez-Greene, one of the Newtown victims:
" . . . May we come together as a great nation to make some change. Help us to stay away from polarizing, divisive arguments that go nowhere."Maybe you could ask that question after the guy beats the woman and children to death with the crowbar.
Hup. Here's another one. Did the police officer shoot himself or another officer. Shooting at closed gun range.
http://m.news9.com/story.aspx?story=205 … tId=112032You are sorely mistaken if you think that taking away the right to bear arms from United States citizens is going to lower crime rates. Look at criminals...Do you really think that they are going to legitimate gun dealers to go through a required background check to purchase a gun, and register it?? Absolutely not. The criminals purchase guns illegally and will continue to do so even if guns were taken away. The ones who would have the real problem would the the law abiding citizens because we would be defenseless. Who would have guns?? The govenment and the criminals. This is how we want our country to end up? Not me. If there was two people who were targets for a home invasion and the robbers knew that one of the homeowners owned 2 handguns and a shotgun and the other homeowner was against automatic weapons (so owns no guns) who do you think he will choose to rob? and possible kill? The person without a gun!!!! You people who are against guns will be on the losing side of the poll when everthing is said and done. You think that Americans who own guns are going to sit back and let the government take their weapons? Ya right. If it comes down to this you can bet that it will cause another civil war and I want to be on the side with guns!
This guy didn't have to worry about Obama or Congress. James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response had his carry permit revoked after threatening to "start killing people" in a YouTube video.
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/20566 … um=twitterA little more serious than that Paul. This fellow's entire business revolves around firearms. I'm pretty sure he'll appeal the decision or seek some other legal means to retain his permit. I do think we have to be careful just how far we are willing to carry our first amendment rights of free speech.
To be clear--it isn't his free speech rights that are being limited, is it?
His right to bear arms is being limited, because of some fool thing he said.
Really, if someone's unbalanced enough to threaten to shoot people, their right to bear arms should be suspended until it can be determined whether they're really a threat to themselves and/or others.I never said his free speech rights were being limited. But if you say some fool thing that threatens harm to others there's going to be a reaction.
I agree with you, Jeff. This guy lives in Western Tennessee and I think his permit should be suspended then he should be investigated before it's reinstated.
The right to keep and bear arms comes with the responsibility of watching what you say even when ticked off.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
More than obvious to me is the shallowness of minds that think any changes in gun laws are going to make these killings go away . , I always assumed that intellectualy eletist liberal socialism gurus .......had more common sense !
That's a lot of hyperbole. The right and left are all over the map on this issue. There's really no one person, on either side, that can be pointed to as representative of the entire side.
"There's really no one person, on either side, that can be pointed to as representative of the entire side."
Ahhh, okay, then please explain to me why every time there's a shooting, every Liberal wants to lump all law-abiding gun owners in with the shooter?I'm a liberal and I don't. I think the second amendment is as important as every other amendment. You might also remember that Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, is a gun enthusiast.
All I have said since the beginning of this particular forum post is we need background checks on all sales. If you aren't a felon or a mental health patient that shouldn't be a problem.
And let me add this. If we can restrict health records via HPPA we can sure restrict access to background checks in a similar way.Jonesy50
I see what you are saying but once again, it's not only liberals who feel this way. Some out in the open, and most behind closed doors, conservatives too who say publically that they are pro-gun and don't want any gun control will tell associates that they agree. Only problem is, they receive money from lobbyists from various pro-gun groups and are concerned about losing their job, the backing from locals in their district.
It's a sad affair when a country problem turns into a political left and right discussion.Lucid Dreams has a good point. The country is so polarized and has been for so long, nobody is thinking rationally anymore, no matter what the issue. It makes me wonder if we will always be a "left" and "right" country, though most people have a mix of conservative and liberal views, and are somewhere in between.
Everyone is angry and scared, both bad when we are discussing guns. I know sensible people who hunt, people who work as watchmen and carry guns, and have a few friends who carry concealed, usually who live in more rural areas and grew up in hunting or military families, or both. There is more danger in more populated areas, because one crazy person can do so much damage. There really are too many mentally ill people on the streets, whether they have guns or not. I've been anti-gun in the past, but have read much on these forums, and do not believe everyone should be disarmed. I believe the 2nd Amendment was written so a militia or now a group could use guns against a rogue government if necessary. Is this true?
"every Liberal wants to lump all law-abiding gun owners in with the shooter?"
Not true. All we want is some common sense rules. consistent with the 2nd Amendment, effectively enforced.I'm all for the enforcement of common sense rules, Ralph. We have several in my state already. Places like Arizona does not. These should be enacted on the state level, not the federal. No, I don't trust the federal government, especially the present administration.
What does anger me is the left's knee-jerk reaction and standing on the graves of 20 first graders to further their political agenda. It in no way surprises me but it does anger me. Frankly, it's disgusting. I'll never be convinced these low-life politicians give a tinker's damn about those kids. They're just tools, a means to an end."What does anger me is the left's knee-jerk reaction and standing on the graves of 20 first graders to further their political agenda."
The knee-jerk reaction came immediately from the right delivered by NRA's moron spokesman Wayne "What me worry" LaPierre who came up with an Archie Bunker, arm- everybody solution which went over like a you-know-what in the punch bowl. I notice that LaPierre's been given the hook and replaced by NRA president David Keene who is a little smoother but equally opposed to effective gun regulations and buy certifyable nutcase Alex Jones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iBzGGz51hQMore than a week later is not a knee jerk reaction. Almost immediately the left was calling for regulations and bans. Who are the ones always talking about regulations and bans? It is exclusively liberals/democrats. Contrary to what most of the left thinks people are inherently good and can take care of themselves, we do not need to be taken care of especially by the incompetent federal government.
http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/12/w … tion-plan/The first time anyone said anything about a gun ban was the very same day, and it wasn't coming from liberals. It was coming from gun enthusiasts, who said, "They'd better not ban guns," or, "Just wait, they'll try to ban guns again," or, "I hope they don't use this as an excuse to take our guns away."
That right there is what you call a knee-jerk reaction. And really, anyone learning of such a tragedy and whose first reaction is, "Oh, noes, they'll come for my guns!" (or "Now's our chance to get the guns!") is a terrible, horrible person.Do you agree with LaPierre's suggestion that armed guards be posted at every school? That strikes me as a crack pot idea for several reasons which I've stated previously.
Seems to me the NRA and the gun manufacturers and dealers of assault weapons are the ones who are capitalizing on the Sandy Hook massacre by putting out false propaganda that the Obama administration plans to confiscate weapons with the result that AR-15s are selling like hotcakes.Police officers are in schools where I live now, they are called School resource officers. There have not been any school shootings in my area ever!
Since Obama became President gun sales are up, people do not trust him!
As I recall most people do trust him or he wouldn't have beaten the crap out of Mitt Romney. The ones who don't are dupes of liars and conspiracy theorists who deny that he's a Christian American citizen. Billionaires like the Koch brothers and Donald Trump who are polluting our political process in this country as well as the environment are also feeding distrust of President Obama.
Are you a denier of Obama's natural born citizenship and eligibility for the presidency or of his professed Christianity? If so you may be a victim of the Tea Party Syndrome." :-)
Here is a list which may be used to diagnose how far from reality an individual is. Holding six or more of the beliefs qualifies you for membership in the Tea Party. Ten or more is an indication that you have lost nearly all touch with reality and are a candidate for in-patient psychiatric care.
1. Global warming is a hoax.
2. Not sure Obama was born in the U.S.
3. Obama is a secret Muslim.
4. Handgun control violates the Second Amendment.
5. Licensed gun owners should be able to "carry" at any public event, in public buildings, schools, etc.
6. "Drill baby drill" is the answer to energy issues
7. Evolution is an unproved theory.
8. Creationism or "intelligent" design should be taught in public schools.
9. Affirmative action amounts to discrimination against whites.
10. Sharia law is spreading across the US.
11. Government is the enemy,
12. Free markets will solve nearly all problems.
13. The graduated income tax amounts to unfair or unconstitutional confiscation.
14. The Education Department, the EPA and other Executive Branch agencies should be eliminated.
15. Foreign aid is a waste of taxpayer's money and should be discontinued.
16. The right of workers to organize unions and bargain collectively with employers should be curtailed.
17. Capital punishment is necessary to deter crimes and provide justice to victims.
18. Law and order should be a higher priority; prison sentences should be longer and parole standards tightened.
19. Sex education in public schools should be confined to abstinence only.
20. Abortion is murder and should be illegal.
21. The "gay agenda" is a menace to American traditions and institutions.
22. All illegal immigrants should be deported.
23. Corporations should have all the same rights as people--except to be held criminally accountable.
24. Do you believe that all Tea Party candidates are prophets sent by God to save the world?
25. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme which should be "privatized."No Ralph, just most of those who voted. I didn't read the rest of your post its just more of the same. No need to distract people from the issue, most Americans support gun ownership! Bill Clinton proposed and enacted a program for armed guards in schools, Obama cut funding for that program.
Your only interest is to restrict my rights, we all know it.I and most Americans support gun ownership. I got my first gun at age 12, and until recently, I owned three guns--one rifle and two shotguns. I also support reasonable, commonsense, effective controls on handguns and military-style weapons consistent with the 2nd amendment.
No sir, you support a limit on my constitutional rights. Liberals/democrats generally do.
No, I don't support any limit or your Constitutional rights. You have no Constitutional right to buy an assault weapon, a large magazine for it or for handguns. The most recent interpretation by the Supreme Court allows reasonable restrictions on guns. The previous assault weapons ban expired. It was not found that anybody has a Constitutional right to an assault weapon. States and cities have a right under the constitution to adopt reasonable and practical restrictions on guns, but not to legislate a total ban on hand guns or other weapons necessary for hunting or self-protection.
Why not take them all, Ralph?
" the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - you are willing to infringe on the right to keep and bear particular arms, why not include all guns? You could, after all, still keep and bear archery equipment, swords, battle axes and all knives; they are all weapons (arms) so banning all guns would not conflict with the second amendment any more than banning only some guns. Or, to prevent nitpicking, allow only muzzle loaders; the weapons of the time.That's a reductio as absurdum argument. Nobody is advocating "taking them all," certainly not me. That would require an Amendment of the Constitution. Reasonalble people recognize that there are many valid uses for owning guns--hunting, target shooting, self protection and so forth. "Resisting a tyrannical government" is in my opinion not a reasonable use of guns. It falls in the looney tunes category, in my opinion. The public has the right under the Constitution to expect our government to adopt practical and reasonable rules concerning the manufacture, sale, use of guns, and the type of guns and the conditions under which they may be carried and used.
You misunderstand the thrust of my post. If denying a part of guns is constitutionally OK, why not all of them? Or all but muzzle loaders? Where do you see the line in " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? How do you possibly twist that short sentence to indicate that some guns are OK while some are not?
Plus, you know as well as I do that some people ARE demanding no private ownership. Right now it is a small group, but the more guns are taken the larger the group will get.
Nor are there any words whatsoever that could possible be misconstrued to say we can expect the government to put any limits at all on gun ownership, let alone manufacture or sale. The constitution gives the federal government precious few responsibilities or requirements; it is nearly all limitations instead."How do you possibly twist that short sentence to indicate that some guns are OK while some are not?"
Well, the short sentence (which you've actually truncated from its complete version) doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear guns shall not be infringed." It's the right to keep and bear arms. "Arms" is a generic term for any weapon.
By your interpretation of this sentence, I'm entitled to keep and carry nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons if I want., 'cos, "shall not be infringed." I should be able to go to the ballpark, a rock concert, the park, or a political rally with a few hand grenades on my belt if I want, 'cos, "shall not be infringed." I should be able to mount a machine gun on my car if I want, 'cos, "shall not be infringed." I should be allowed to walk down the street with a katana strapped to my waist, 'cos, "shall not be infringed."
Do you seriously think that ordinary people should be allowed to mount a machine gun on their cars, and carry hand grenades around with them? 'Cos that what you just argued in favor of: no limitations or responsibilities come with the right to keep and bear arms, so, anything goes, right?100% correct. But whether or not I would support carrying hand grenades or nukes (I don't) I'm curious as to how that sentence has come to mean "arms that I don't think are bad" instead of "arms".
This round of gun controls started with assault weapons; it could well end up with banning sale of semi-automatic weapons and large magazines. When and where will it stop; where is that invisible line declared to exist in the 2nd amendment and what keeps it from constantly being moved? How is that line being defined?
Or is it just the NRA that keeps guns available to the common citizen at all?Total baloney. Why are large magazines important to you? Please explain. Are you one of the ones who are worried about the black helicopters? Is that why you're defending assault weapons and large magazines? There is no guarantee of any kind in the Constitution for your right to these kinds of weapons.
By now, after repeating myself twice, you have to understand that I'm not particularly concerned about this round of controls.
What I am concerned about, and I've made that abundantly clear, is how you interpret "shall be abridged" to mean "shall not be abridged unless I think differently". How do you interpret that simple sentence to give any authority to govt. to reduce availability of any weapons?
We have done so in the past, do so in the present and will continue to do so in the future. All with supreme court OK. Of course, when justices consistently vote a straight party line it becomes pretty obvious that legality is not of primary importance to them; political expediency and personal belief is.
For the last time, then, and I promise I won't ask again, but can you explain how "shall not be abridged" converts to "shall not be abridged except as congress dictates for specific arms"? Is it your contention that congress can violate the constitution as long as they can get the votes?The Constitution has to be read in conjunction with subsequent Supreme Court decisions. If I'm not mistaken the most recent decision affirmed that the right to bear arms was protected and overturned the District of Columbia's total ban on hand guns. Moreover, it said that states can adopt reasonable restrictions on the sale and use of guns, such as banning from class rooms, court rooms, government buildings, etc. I don't believe it defined "arms." Again, my recollection is that machine guns have been banned either federally or by state laws for many years. The right to bear assault weapons, big magazines, etc., is not protected by the Second Amendment. In some states they are legal and in others they are not. Gun laws are a dogs breakfast and vary widely from state to state. It seems to me pretty clear that in today's context, weapons of war (grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, etc.) are not protected by the Second Amendment. And trying to use them against the federal government would be treason or against local or state authorities would be a criminal offense. That's why all this talk about exercising "2nd Amendment rights" is a delusion.
Here's a quote from the DC decision:
"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons..."
And here's a link to the entire decision which is the most recent on the 2nd Amendment:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/up … 07-290.pdfFrom which I conclude that in your opinion if the supreme court says it's OK then it is. While that is obviously true legally I would not have thought that you of all people would accept it ethically or as an actual "legal" interpretation of the constitution. We both know that the SC votes politically and ideologically, not necessarily as a matter of law; if it were not so we wouldn't see a party line vote on nearly every issue.
Very disappointed in you, Ralph; you deserve a slap on the wrist with the ruler!
Not at all. I disagree with many Supreme Court decisions, especially the one that equated corporations' first amendment rights with citizens rights to give unlimited amounts to political campaigns (Citizens United). Nevertheless, that is the law until the Supreme Court or a Constitutional amendment changes it.
I don't like the DC 2nd amendment decisions, but I accept it as the law.
Here's another quote that bears on the issue of the definition of "arms"
"... We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
That accords with the historical understanding of the
scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25"
Does it bother you that machine guns and "short-barreled" shotguns aren't protected under the Second Amendment? What about poison gas, rocket launchers, etc.?Well, truthfully I feel much the same. The corporate decision was wrong, but is law.
Concerning the 2nd, though - seems to me that the "challenges" have been there so long, and so successfully, that it is now simply accepted as no challenge at all; just as a reasonable interpretation of the amendment. Although I fully agree that it is necessary to impose weapons limits it is still a wrong interpretation. It also worries me right now (although I see in today's paper that semi-automatic weapons won't be banned) because it opens a door that a great many would love to see the country walk through - a total ban on guns in general.
I fear our government and the propensity for people to demand unnecessary control over others. We've seen an awful lot of unnecessary restriction on our personal freedoms in just my lifetime and I personally do not see it stopping or even slowing.
100% correct. But whether or not I would support carrying hand grenades or nukes (I don't) I'm curious as to how that sentence has come to mean "arms that I don't think are bad" instead of "arms".
Well, mainly because the 2nd Amendment was never intended to make it easier for The People (tm) to overthrow the government, in spite of what the yahoos on the extreme pro-gun side claim.
In fact, once upon a time the NRA was in favor--and helped to draft!--legislation to regulate the sale and carrying of firearms. It's only since the 1970s that they started with the nonsense that any law regulating firearms in any way is unconstitutional.
This round of gun controls started with assault weapons; it could well end up with banning sale of semi-automatic weapons and large magazines. When and where will it stop; where is that invisible line declared to exist in the 2nd amendment and what keeps it from constantly being moved? How is that line being defined?
That slippery slope argument doesn't end the discussion; it's a good starting point, though. What is the point where a given arm is deemed too much for civilians to own? Do we want civillians to be able to drive to work in a fully armed Abrams tank? Why or why not?
Okay, if not a tank, should we let people put machine guns in their headlights (a-la james Bond)? Why or why not?
Should we let people own surface-to-air missiles? Why or why not?
How about .30 belt-fed machine guns? But unless I'm mistaken, this is usually a crew-served weapon (veterans, can you confirm or debunk me?), so maybe it's not that big a deal--a mad gunman can't take it to the mall under his jacket and open up on the crowd. He'd need to set it up in the back of a panel van, drive up, open the back doors, and then open up on the crowd, and without someone to keep an eye on the ammo belt, he might not be able to kill too many people before it jams up on him....
Maybe there are reasonable limitations to be found.
Gun enthusiasts like to point out that we don't ban cars when people get killed in car crashes. Given that, I find it interesting that we don't really hear car enthusiasts* complaining about the government infringing upon their rights when a local authority passes, and the courts uphold, limitations on our car-driving rights*.
I mean, it started with the government overreaching to set speed limits. (Who are they to say that I can't control my vehicle safely at 80MPH?) Then requiring seatbelts on all vehicles. Then they started requiring turn signals and brake lights! There's a ban on nitrous tanks! Nitrous tanks! What if I need to flee a carjacker? I'm not going to be able to get away in my little Pontiac Sunfire without that extra burst of speed. Do they want me to get carjacked!? And come to think of it, what if I'm really late for work, or just in a hurry? Who are they to say I have to go 35 in a residential area? If nobody's around, why shouldn't I just floor it? And what's with this "license" I have to have to be allowed to operate a motor vehicle? And why should I have to register my vehicle? What business is it of the government if I have car, or what kind of car I have? And won't car registration just make it easier for the government to come and take our cars? Where will it end?
*If you don't think there are car enthusiasts just as passionate as the gun enthusiasts making all this noise, you've never been to hot rod show.
**And before anyone starts telling us that the right to drive isn't protected by the constitution just because it isn't specifically mentioned, let me remind you of the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So we do have the right to own and drive cars.
Really? Where are the limits to those rights? I do have the right to own them and I do own them.
Just thought I'd throw this past you whoisit.
I do know what I'm talking about despite your objections. I've been military for quite a while and am familiar with a large number of weapons including crew serviced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_M … ip_Program
If you look at the section titled "Programs" you'll find the M1 Garand listed.Thats nice, still doesn't tell me where in the constitution that I am prohibited from owning a semi-automatic or a pistol. Ralph, made the claim maybe he can answer it.
You would think if they didn't want citizens to have automatic weapons, they would have said so, considering Congress had placed an order for some automatic rifles 14 years before the 2A was written, lol.
Your rights under the Constitution are subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court which, as I've pointed out several times, has ruled that reasonable rules regulating guns, including assault weapons bans, and bans of big magazines, etc., which have been adopted by a number of states, are consistent with the 2nd Amendment. You have no Constitutional right to an assault weapon in any state or jurisdiction that bans it. Suck it up!
This has to do with the M1 Garand which you told me I was wrong about. I wasn't.
"Really? Where are the limits to those rights? I do have the right to own them and I do own them."
That depends on where you live. Many states and a number of cities have adopted a variety of gun control laws which stipulate what guns and other equipment are permitted and the requirements for registering and using them. As I'm sure you know, the laws vary from state to state.
With rights come responsibilities. Most adults understand this.
Most of our rights come with limitations.
Our right to free speech is limited; we're not allowed to lie about people such that it damages their reputation--that's called slander.
Our right to a free press is limited; we're not allowed to print lies about people such that it damages their reputation--that's called libel.
Do you imagine that you should have the right to have any kind of weapon that the government has access to? Including high explosives, NBC weapons, armed/armored vehicles? 'Cos if you think the 2nd Amendment is for violently resisting the government, it follows that you think we should be allowed to buy a nuclear submarine full of ballistic missiles if we want to.
Of course, if you bear arms to resist or rebel against the US government that pretty much means you're committing treason....."Of course, if you bear arms to resist or rebel against the US government that pretty much means you're committing treason....."
Very good point.
Thanks for the quiz Ralph. I apparently am sane, as I disagree with the whole list.
Funny you should say this.
Paranoid right-wing people said, "If Obama becomes president, it's going to be harder for you to buy the gun you want, because Obama will ban guns."
Obama becomes president, and tons of people flock to the gun stores, because OMG!!! That unAmurican Kenyan communazi secret Muslim's a-gonna take all m'gunz! O noes!!1!!!1!111!eleven!.
Pretty soon, someone who wants to buy a gun and/or ammunition will have a hard time doing it--not because any new regulations have been passed or even proposed, but because the paranoid gun nuts bought up all the guns and ammo and they've become scarse.
The paranoid Right shouts, "See!? We told you if Obama was elected you wouldn't be able to buy guns!"
It'd be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.
Actually, put that way, it is kind of funny. And very, very true, too.Common theme amongst those without an argument, try and make the other side look stupid. You want to limit my constitutional rights and it drives you mad that you have zero power to do it!
What do you mean, "try?" I don't have to do hardly anything. Gun-worshippers look plenty stupid on their own. I just point it out occasionally.
You mean besides the power to point out stupid stuff?
The funny thing in this debate is the trust that must be extended to the pussbags in congress to get it or anything right. What is even worse is that once a right is changed or taken away the slimebags won't give it back. The only case I can think of that they actually revisited the problem and reversed the law was with the 18th amendment that prohibited alcohol. The crime became so rampant that they had to recind it.
Can we trust he slime on the hill to not polarize the issue and pass some sort of comprehensive plan that address's all rights of those involved? I think it is a lot to ask of these bumbling idiots and probably won't mean a whole lot in a few months when the mind numbing media picks up a different cause.You bring up an interesting point, though perhaps not what you intended (and I agree 100% with your analysis of what we can expect from our exalted leaders).
In the 1920's, violent crime peaked with prohibition (and peaked hugely); as prohibition ended, that crime rate fell enormously.
As the US began it's "war on drugs" homicides began it's huge climb back into the stratosphere. As law enforcement began to ignore the laws on marijuana use and just pretend it wasn't there, homicide rates began to fall once more. The graph is quite interesting.
Have we created this problem by taking away something (marijuana) just as we did in the 20's by taking away alcohol - by taking away something that people in general want and demand? If we legalize weed throughout the nation would we again see a much more reasonable violent crime rate?
I'm not a hunter... I don't really think about guns.... but I think it is obvious that only law-abiding citizens will respect gun laws. I have many MANY friends that have had guns all their lives for hunting and target shooting and none of them are a danger to society. At the same time I fear both sides are moving to the extremes; banning weapons on one side and openly carrying guns like in the old West on the other. Why did we stop carrying guns long ago? There must have been a reason. At the same time the Constitution SPECIFICALLY allows guns to owned by the citizenry. What we lack is trust in one another. We need RATIONAL people who are not reacting to knee-jerk emotion to study the issue and make recommendations that include REAL prohibitions to sales of guns to known criminals and people who have mental problems. I don't know if there is a national database that is accesible by every state or every gun show. I think we need to go there. I don't know much about magazines and automatic weapons but I think we can use common sense at some level.
I personally feel it is the anger in the people and the great divide that seems to exist that causes these kinds of horrifying incidents. People who are unstable snap when exposed to repeated negative stimulus. At least that's how I feel about it. When we scream about racism and classism and other things like this we are creating a climate of hate. The guns have always been with us but something else has changed and that is what needs to be addressed.Am I to take that the only way human beings can solve their differences is by looking down the barrel of a gun?
I hope not. There are too many in the U.S. I'm trying to see the issue from the side of people who hunt or carry for personal reasons for protection, that's all. I really don't think we need so many guns, no other country has so many shootings as the U.S., that's not something to be proud of. A man in the news yesterday said if the gov't. tried to take his guns away, he would go on a shooting spree. He's in custody. It's obvious that guns are getting in the hands of mentally ill people. The gun lovers would make a better case if rational people would speak, but it's always rednecky people who have few teeth and can't speak proper English. So the Pro gun people better get representation by people who don't seem crazy or too stupid to think rationally. But they would kill less people with less guns. Yes, people who want them will still get them. But it should be harder. We don't have to shoot our food anymore, and there is no need for the guns that have so many clips of bullets that maniacs can just shoot up a whole bldg. and kill so many people in a matter of minutes. I'm still anti-gun.
Thats funny... no other country has as many shootings as the United States?? What hole have you been living in?? Do you not know about all the wars and ccivil wars stillll going on in other ccountries. Pro gun supporters are not represented by "hilllbillies with few teeth". That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. There are extremists on both sides. I am not saying that we all need to own machine guns, but there is no reason to take away gun rights. Should we outlaw baseball bats too? Knives? Brass knuckles? Pencils? Come on. All of these things above can be used as weapons. Remember the Kansas City bombing? That man didnt use one gun and killed tons of innocent people....AND children in a daycare. If someone wants to kill a mass of people, they will find a way without a gun. Guns are not the issue here, it is people who have the unstable minds and the drive to harm another person.
I wasn't including countries at war, I was discussing people who live in the U.S. who are killing people in the U.S. with guns. Sorry about the hillbilly comment, that was uncalled for, but I had just seen a man on TV ranting, and he was so illiterate he made his side of the case look worse. If you read the rest of the thread, I've been trying hard to understand this issue from the side of people who are pro gun. And I came to conclusions that sometimes they are necessary, and I know several people who use guns who are responsible. I still believe more children and innocents are killed by guns in the U.S. than in any other country (not at civil war).
Wars and terrorism are a separate issue that has little or nothing to do with the need for more effective gun control in the U.S. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Jean,
I see your position and I agree with much of what you have to say. When people abuse that which endangers others or become irresponsible for that which is dangerous or potentially dangerous to others then yes they should be regulated, controlled or what ever it takes to make them understand that their freedom ends where someone else's begins.
If in a schoolyard a toy such as jumping jacks were used by throwing them at other kids with the potential of damaging someone's eyes I am certain action would be taken regarding that simple toy which most likely would mean banning that toy.The government controls a bunch of stuff. If blocking ownership if assault weapons was so arduous, why did we have it for almost ten years without any real protests. Perhaps because owning assault rifles isn't all that important and banning the ownership of them isn't completely unnecessary.
You're right, at least in that I don't remember any uproar over the ban of assault weapons.
However, it wasn't going to end there; all semi-automatics is what I heard was being proposed, as well as assault guns. Plus large magazines, of course. Tonight's paper said semi's would not be limited, though, at least this time around.
I want to chime in here. The National Firearms Act or NFA (enacted June 26, 1934) does allow for the possession of automatic weapons.
This law was originally passed during prohibition and specifically targeted weapons used by gangsters in the transportation of (then illegal) alcohol. Because it specifically banned firearms these criminals commonly used the list included short barreled shotguns and machine guns.
The list specifically banned machine guns—this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull, short-barreled rifles (SBRs)—this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26," short barreled shotguns (SBSs) —this category is defined similarly to SBRs, but the barrel must be at least 18" instead of 16", and the barrel must be a smoothbore, silencers —this includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm, and destructive devices (DDs)—there are two broad classes of destructive devices such as bombs, grenades, poison gas weapons and explosive missiles.
All of these are collectively called NFA firearms.
However, the law does not ban ownership outright, it bans the ownership by criminals.
All NFA firearm must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. -- source Wikipedia
So the class of weapons is not illegal to own; one simply must to meet a higher standard of verifiable responsibility to own them.
I know a WWII vet (lives down the street from me) who owns a Willys Jeep complete with a mounted, functional M2 in the rear.The National Firearms Act or NFA (enacted June 26, 1934) does allow for the possession of automatic weapons.
And interestingly, the NRA supported this law.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Ralph ....Okay scenario ; Ten years from now there are no more "assault weapons in America ; and the news flashes.......... " Local nut job blows up subway car ful of babies with propane tanks and a cell phone!"........will you then blame Former gun owners ? I understand that liberals have to simultainiously push the same politically correct Hot Buttons , but come on ! .......wouldn't it be the intellectual thing to do right now if we came up with REAL sollutions to proper mental health care issues and not turn our heads away from being socially responsible ? OR ........No go ahead ! stick with the liberal intellectual idealist agenda ! That seems to be all yoiu guys can handle at once .
I haven't heard any "real solutions" coming from the NRA involving guns. They've been mentioning "mental care" and putting police in the schools, but nothing about guns. They are making a serious mistake.
- JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago0
Just for fun... Lewis and Clark used a rifle on their expedition that could hold 22 bullets at a time, and fire a round every 1-2 seconds. The Girandoni air rifle was first made 11 years before the second amendment was adopted.
60 years previous to the 2A the Puckle Gun could fire 63 shots in 7 minutes.
14 years previous to the 2A, the Continental Congress made a deal for 100 modified 'Belton flintlocks'. The Belton flintlock could fire up to 20 balls in 5 seconds, and a new 'magazine'(essentially a tube) could be loaded in just a few more seconds.
The 2A wasn't written to give citizens the right to have muskets. The founders were forward-thinking men, which is why they didn't say muskets. They weren't ignorant either, as they had firsthand experience with automatic rifles.Good argument.
So you know though, the Lewis and Clark expedition was U.S. Army and had the official name "Corps of Discovery. " As such it was a military operation and may not be the best example for this list.The list isn't meant to distinguish between military and civilian. At the time, there was no distinction in arms allowed to military and civilians.
I hadn't known about the Belton Flintlock today, but that blows the whole 'they didn't know we would have automatic weapons' argument out of the water. They ordered 100 of them!
This statement:
...[the founders] had firsthand experience with automatic weapons.
Is nonsense.
Remember that an "automatic weapon" will fire round after round for as long as you hold the trigger down, until the ammunition runs out.
Remember, too, that a "semiautomatic weapon" fires a round when you squeeze the trigger, and chambers a new round without you having to work a pump, lever, or bolt action, so all you have to do is squeeze the trigger again to fire the next round.
With that in mind, consider the following:
The Lewis&Clark expedition's air rifle had to be held vertically between shots so that the ball could roll from the hopper into the chamber. Not even semi-automatic.
The Puckle gun's 63 rounds in 7 minutes was admirable for the time, but that's a bit less than ten rounds a minute. It had a (large and heavy) cylindrical magazine (like a revolver) that held eleven rounds, and it had a flintlock mechanism, which would have to be re-primed and cocked between shots. It wasn't an automatic weapon.
And finally, the Belton flintlock packed its rounds one on top of the other, like a Roman candle. It had a sliding flintlock mechanism, and would fire each round in progression from the muzzle-ward end of the stack to the breach. Each time the gun was fired, the marksman would have to perform the following actions:
1) Slide the lock back to the next touchhole in line
2) Set the cock to the half-cock position
3) Prime the pan
4) Close the hammer (what modern rendezvouers call the "frizzen")
5) Set the cock to full cock position
6) Squeeze the trigger
7) >BANG!<
I'm sure that, when it worked*, the Belton flintlock was a lot faster than the usual single-shot muskets of the day, but there's no way you could conceivably call it an "automatic" weapon. Heck, it wasn't even a semi-automatic weapon.
So none of these blow the "they didn't have automatic weapons" argument out of the water. Heck, they don't even blow that argument's nose. They weren't automatic weapons.
*Flintlocks are notorious for fouling, failing to spark, and having all kinds of stuff go wrong with them. More moving bits, as on Belton's gun, means more bits to get fouled and malfunction.
(I know how flintlock guns work 'cos I'm a reenactor, and I regularly use a reproduction "Brown Bess" firelock.)Ok...
1 - I didn't say the Giradoni rifle was semi-automatic.
2 - I didn't say the Puckle gun was automatic.
3 - The Belton flintlock the CC ordered had a chain fuse. The fuse and loads were all one package. It was an automatic weapon. The weapon you are referring to is one that Belton came up with later. The one I was talking about was very much automatic. Pull the trigger, and hold the barrel on your target until the rounds stop firing."The one I was talking about was very much automatic."
No, the one you're describing is a Roman Candle, not an automatic weapon. Once you pulled that trigger, you were stuck shooting until you ran out.
I suppose it could be considered automatic in that one squeeze of the trigger gets you several shots in a row, but not in the sense that you can stop shooting by releasing the trigger. One pull of the trigger, and you empty your gun (whether you want to or not).
The reason they didn't say "muskets" was not because they specifically wanted to include machine guns, but rather that 'arms' was (and still is) a generic term that included muskets, swords, spears, rifles (yes, rifles existed, too), axes, etc.If you have a rifle today that fires 3 bullets with each pull of the trigger(common burst mode), that would be considered automatic. What about one that fired 8 bullets with each pull of the trigger? That's what the congress ordered, and that's no different. It's automatic, no matter how much you try to nit-pick it.
They said arms because it wasn't meant to be limited. It wasn't meant to be looked at by someone in the future and say 'They didn't mean these guns, cause they didn't have them'. It should be very clear that, as the legislators who gave us the 2A were familiar with guns that could automatically fire 20 rounds in a row, didn't mean to ban them. They used very, very strong language for the time to actually protect them.What about one that you couldn't stop firing no matter how much you wanted to?
Congress ordered a roman candle that could be reloaded, not an "automatic weapon," no matter how much you try to stretch the meaning of what an automatic weapon is.
"They said arms because it wasn't meant to be limited."
So, according to you, I have the right to carry a bunch of grenades wherever I go, 'cos "it wasn't meant to be limited?"
I can put a macine gun turret on my car, 'cos "it wasn't meant to be limited?"
Yeah, that's good policy.A burst-automatic rifle will fire 3 bullets every pull of the trigger. It's considered automatic. You can't change it, you can't stop it once you start.
Exactly the same principle as a gun that fires 8 bullets every pull of the trigger. It's automatic. You can't change it, you can't stop it once you start.
I'm honestly surprised you're trying to argue this... the principle of a gun that fires 20 rounds in 5 seconds, via 'roman candle' method, and a gun that fires 50 rounds in 5 seconds, via gas-recoil, isn't that far separated(besides a couple hundred years of technology. The point is, the men who wrote the 2A were familiar with weapons that had high-capacity and high rate-of-fire. But just ignore that if it's inconvenient for you.Fine, let's agree that you think a roman candle counts as an automatic weapon, and that I think that's ludicrous, and leave it at that.
How about this:
"They said arms because it wasn't meant to be limited."
So, according to you, I have the right to carry a bunch of grenades wherever I go, 'cos "it wasn't meant to be limited?"
I can put a macine gun turret on my car, 'cos "it wasn't meant to be limited?"
Should we be allowed to have machine guns mounted on our cars, or should we not? Why or why not?Yes we should be allowed to. Why? Because the second amendment gives us this right, It isn't limited.
So you don't have a problem with me carrying grenades or having a nuclear device in my basement, then.
Not at all, you seem to be a law abiding citizen. Just don't take it out and play with it.
That fact that you don't think there's a problem with a private citizen owning a nuclear device tells me one of two things:
1) you're just saying that because you know admitting that Joe Citizen shouldn't have a nuclear bomb weakens your position that there are no limits on 2nd Amendment rights
OR
2) that you are a person with incredibly poor judgement, and probably shouldn't be trusted with firearms.Yeah, sure, always the same ol same ol. There is no limit placed on the second amendment except the one government has placed on it. You have nothing to fear from law abiding citizens exercising their rights, you have only to fear the outlaws who no matter what law imposed will break it.
The truth is you and so many others want to limit my constitutional rights while crying that a right that doesn't exist should exist.
I have to nit-pick this. If it were full-auto it would be called "full-automatic." A three shot burst is called "burst" so they are different. As a veteran I can tell you the burst mode makes more sense than full-automatic. As I've said before a soldier without ammunition is an ineffective soldier.
And yet we still have laws on the books from the mid-1930 that specifically ban automatic weapons, short-barreled shot-guns, short-barreled rifles, grenades, other bombs, and poison gas. Except for the bombs and gas the prohibitions do not completely ban these firearms, but limit purchase to those who can demonstrate unimpeachable responsibility.
I'd say the program is wildly successful since there's only been one single case where an approved NFA gun owner violated the law.Presuming that "violated the law" means they killed someone, one instance in 80 years sounds pretty darn good.
If so, why do we even consider banning those weapons? Do we have no better use for our time than talking about actions that might have prevented exactly one homicide in 80 years of enforcement?W: I have to say I'm impressed with the record. As I remember this was a case of someone taking a machine gun across state lines without notifying the ATFB beforehand, but I may be wrong. I'll try to find the instance, in fact have tried to find it already, but haven't found it yet.
I'm in favor of maintaining the status quo with regard to the NFA. In 1997 we had two crazies with modified (full auto) Chinese AKs rob a Bank of American in North Hollywood. Though they were the only two deaths (one committed suicide) they wounded nineteen police, some enough to end their careers, and an untold number of civilians. Because they were using military ammunition, armor piercing, they were shooting through cinder-block walls and police cars. Clearly they had violated federal law, but without the changes made after this incident, police did not have the authority to examine the weapons (which were legal as semi-auto) and determine if any modifications were made.
As I mentioned before I'm acquainted with a veteran who owns a WWII Willys MB jeep outfitted with a fully functional M2 .50 caliber machine gun on a military mount. From what I understand this weapon is now so rare resale value ranges in the five figures. Because of their rarity the price always rises every year.
I'm glad he has it. The entire ensemble looks like it just came out of the factory. He's preserving some important American history with his hobby and he's one of the most responsible people I've ever met.
Based upon the comments I'm hearing from gun supporters the image of a better America would be:
* At least two Derringer's underneath a woman's skirt.
* At least one gun belt around the hips of men and a magnum pistol and that holster.
* Perhaps a Glock in a knapsack for the teenagers.
* The AR-15 for the elementary child
* Maybe a Luger for the baby in the crib.
I suspect that should now make the gun supporters feel safer about living in America.Are you wanting to have a serious discussion? Or, do you just want to try and make ridiculous straw-man arguments?
JaxsonRaine,
I am very serious. Just as serious as those who put the love of killing weapons above the lives of other people.So, who are these 'gun supporters' who want to have every baby and child armed?
You can start with the NRA moron Wayne LaPierre who has apparently been muzzled after he bombed shortly after the slaughter at Newtown:
The following from Alternet:
"The NRA Problem
With the mass murders, it is the NRA that is most culpable. The NRA has been transformed from an organization primarily about gun safety to one taken over by gun zealots. The NRA protects the ability of virtually anyone to get their hands on guns, even the most powerful assault weapons like those used in recent killings. This is in stark contrast to the rest of the developed world. For the NRA, "freedom" is now defined as the ability to carry a concealed handgun virtually anyplace.
"Like most realities in America where consumers and citizens are routinely victimized, the adage "follow the money" always rings true. The NRA for all intents and purposes is the advocacy arm for the booming gun and ammunition industry, where in turn, some of the top gun maker companies are owned by Wall Street hedge funds.
"Gun violence is a huge problem for our society and a top editorial priority for AlterNet. Over the weekend we published Steven Rosenfeld’s illuminating article, "The Surprising Unknown History of the NRA." Today we published: "How the Second Amendment Was Hijacked by Antonin Scalia and the NRA." Rosenfeld is a veteran investigative reporter, deeply immersed in the history and controversies regarding American gun culture, gun violence and gun control laws. He is writing a series of articles on gun safety, the NRA, and violence continuing through this week and next..."Once again, I ask. WHO has been advocating giving guns to babies? Your quote doesn't address that. Did Wayne LaPierre say that?
Well, the NRA did make a shooting app, rated 4 years old and up.
Ralph,
You are wasting your time with Jaxon. Better just let him talk to himself.
I believe you're right.
I would also say for those gun supporters when it comes to banning weapons then perhaps they should consider this:
If it does not matter that one owns a gun and that that gun or any other gun should be banned then are we not hypocrites for asking the world to ban nuclear weapons?
Did not the leader of NRA express their desire to add more guns to the gun problem.
After the shooting at Newtown and NRA member stated why should he have to be penalized for the removal of assault weapons and this part I'm adding simply because the kids got killed.Did he say we should give guns to babies? You said you were being serious, so who has been pushing that 'vision' of America?
I don't understand your second paragraph.I consider the 20 children that were murdered babies-incapable of protecting themselves even if they had a weapon.
My second paragraph focuses on the idea that the only thing important to the so-called adults is that they continue shooting their guns irrespective of who die.Can you understand what I'm saying? WHO is advocating the idea of giving guns to BABIES?
That's what you said the gun-supporters' vision is. You said you were serious. Why do you think that? Who has been advocating that?
What I do with my gun has no relevance on whether or not someone else dies(unless someone is breaking into my house at night, then it might have relevance on that person).When I actions say that the only way we can protect ourselves is for a good guy to have a gun against a bad guy we are essentially telling people ALL PEOPLE you need to have a gun ALL PEOPLE!
For years America has set back while gun killings go on day after day, year after year. I don't ever remember NRA taking the lead, jumping in and talking about dealing with the gun issue. It is only when they are not allowed to play with their guns then they begin to speak out. If the NRA was an island that would be fine but they are in a society and in a society we can cannot always do what we want to do.Then you are the only person I have seen saying we need to arm babies. You're just being ridiculous.
Well then if you can't hear some of these gun supporters saying that than it sounds to me like you're not listening.
All I did was ask you who was advocating that. I've asked several times now, and you haven't provided even one example.
I would recommend you take a trip to LensCrafters. I've pointed out that the leader of the NRA advocated that the only way one can protect themselves would include all the people which includes babies how much plainer do I have to make it?
In case you're unaware people don't often spell out the meaning of what they want done and yet people still get the message.
In case you're aware, trying to argue that 'Everyone should have to right to defend themselves with guns' means the same thing as 'Let's give guns to babies' is completely irrational.
There is one thing we can agree on-WE ARE NOT GOING TO AGREE. I have grown tired of going around in circles with you. I'm finished here!
You are wasting your time with Jaxon. Better just let him talk to himself.
Really, Ralph? Someone says that gun supporters want a gun in every crib, and you're going to side with him? I haven't seen a single person saying we should arm babies, and if I did see someone saying that, I would call them a lunatic.
So tell me Ralph, if you say 'People are saying X', and I ask you to show proof(quotes, videos, etc) of people saying X, why is that a bad thing?It's a dumb, facetious question which doesn't deserve an answer.
SpanStar... if I say 'Everyone should have the right to vote', do you think it logical to assume that I am arguing that babies should get to cast ballots?
Archie Bunker, the original Tea Bagger, on gun control:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q … 0Fwc9urTmM
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Unfortunately Ralph ! I think a certain amount of paranoia for gun people comes from too much government ! Too busy racking our lives through taxation without much representation , and there's been a lot of that around in recent decades too! Ralph , I know you're far more intelligent than to blame anything but the real culprits . Our dis-organized and underfunded mental health care system , our twisted and ultra- civil rights focused legal system . And an apathy of dynamic proportions in political arenas and our very very uncaring social culture !.....If we single out guns we are continuing to avoid REAL change and it WILL happen again and again !......:-}
- JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago0
Lol, I swear. Some of you can't form logical arguments so you spout the weirdest stuff. I'd like to hear your answer to my question SpanStar... are people who advocate voting rights for everyone actually saying babies should get to vote? Or do we use logic to understand that such an extension of what they said would be considered ridiculous?
New York State's new gun laws by bullet point. I'm going to bold one just so no one can miss it.
* An expanded ban on assault and military style weapons
* Mandatory background check for those trying to buy ammunition/bullets
* Ammunition magazines have been brought down from 10 to 7 rounds
* Create a database of people barred from owning guns
* The system will flag those who are trying to buy a large amount of ammunition
* Therapists, doctors and other mental health professionals will be required to tell state authorities if a patient threatens to use a gun illegally, in which case their guns could be taken away.
* Handgun owners must renew their licenses every five years, and it increases prison sentences for using guns in various crimes or taking them onto school grounds…
* Requires background checks for even private gun sales, except those among immediate family members.
* Owners of semi-automatic rifles such as the bushmaster model can keep their guns but have 1 year to register them with the police. And henceforth the sale of such weapons are prohibited in New York.Gun nuts rant about the "slippery slope" when in actuality we've had a "reverse slippery slope!"
NYTimes Letters to the Editor 1-16-12
When Joe Nocera asked his friend’s daughter whether an assault weapon with 30-round magazines should be outlawed, she replied, “That’s the beginning of the slippery slope” (“How to Shoot a Gun,” column, Jan. 12). This common response is completely inadequate for at least two reasons.
First, reasonable regulations do not devolve into slippery slopes. Just because the government can set a speed limit of 65 miles per hour doesn’t mean that it will then set it at 50, then 30, and pretty soon we won’t have cars. We regulate all sorts of things without falling into abysses.
Second, there is no explanation as to why any such slope doesn’t run the other way. If I can have a semiautomatic gun with 30 rounds, why can’t I have a fully automatic gun with 100 rounds or more? A stockpile of grenades? Shoulder-launched missiles? A radioactive “dirty bomb”?
Not even the most ardent defenders of free speech support the right to falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Gun rights advocates would similarly advance their cause by addressing proposed regulations on their own merits rather than reflexively relying on some fictitious “slope.”
DANIEL A. SIMON
New York, Jan. 13, 2013ON THE RIGHT TO "SHOOT TYRANTS":
NY Times Letters 1-16-12:
To the Editor:
Re “Revolutionary Language,” by Charles Blow (column, Jan. 12):
Consider what has been said on behalf of weapons of war: Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News analyst, says the Second Amendment “protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively.” He seemed to be talking about the Obama administration, or Congress. James Yeager, the chief executive of a Tennessee company that trains civilians to use weapons, says he’ll start killing people if gun control efforts move forward, and he urges all “patriots” to do likewise.
Imagine what police departments and the F.B.I. would do if these statements were being made by Muslims in response to government harassment — probably gear up to infiltrate and entrap Muslim groups and perhaps even launch murderous raids against them. That is precisely what happened when young Black Panthers brandished arms during the 1960s. Where were the advocates of the Second Amendment then?
Second Amendment enthusiasm has little to do with advocacy of constitutional rights, and everything to do with marketing for weapons manufacturers and with politically selective fears. Tell me if you’re enthusiastic about Muslims arming themselves, or whether you were enthusiastic about the Black Panthers, and maybe I’ll take your Second Amendment arguments seriously.
IRA GLASSER
New York, Jan. 14, 2013
The writer is former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.President Obama's Executive Actions list.
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.This one is my favorite.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
All law enforcement needs to know is that Eric Holder shipped the guns to Mexico.Please read this link in it's entirety.
The biggest mistake the DOJ made was enlisting the FBI in trying to stop gun trafficking into Mexico with no federal laws in place to punish the traffickers.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2 … ous-truth/The biggest mistake is thinking government at any level is competent.
You didn't read it. Not that I actually expected you to.
So the military is incompetent? That's amazing.
Didn't Connecticut have an assault weapons ban before the shooting? Doesn't Chicago have strict gun control laws?
Limiting my right to own a firearm is not going to solve these problems, the insanity that should be stopped is allowing the federal government to try and fix anything.So you own assault weapons and 100+ clips? If not, nothing is being limited. It's like saying the ban on owning nuclear suitcase bombs is infringing your need-based right to have them.
If you are a responsible gun owner why would you have a problem with background checks on all sales?
What does that have to do with anything? The shooter killed his Mother and took her weapons, a background check would not have stopped that. By the way I am not against background checks at all but it has never stopped a school shooter or any shooter from killing.
You are absolutely right about that one case. However it's clear Adam Lanza had mental problems. In his particular case that may not have made a bit of difference. James Holmes was known to have some sort of mental health issue, but there appears to not have been an avenue to report those problems to some authority with access to the fire-arms database. The Virginia Tech shooter had obvious mental health problems. Same issue.
One of the executive action items Obama signed strengthens reporting requirements for mental health professionals and faster and more accurate updating of the database used for background checks. So, yes, there is a connection.
This isn't about Sandy Hook alone.I agree with Ralph, those who need short term help with something like depression will not seek the help for fear their second amendment rights may be suspended. We all know are at least should know government is a failure.
Depression is not necessarily suicidal thoughts. Hell, I get depressed from time to time, but I never imagine all the step necessary to end my life. And so you know "suicidal ideation" is pretty well defined. Also, I think most mental health professionals and law professionals understand that most forms of depression are temporary.
What we are really talking about is called "clinical depression." And yes those people should probably not have firearms, because suicidal ideation is far more common with this form of depression.
Finally, depression is not the same as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, severe psychosis, or borderline personality disorder...all of which can be much more serious than even clinical depression.
Or do you favor people with serious breaks with reality to have the same access to weapons that you do?Once again it isn't the fact that a Doctor will or wont report them its the fear they might. Can't diagnose a problem if you don't get the chance to see it.
Very true, but look at Virginia Tech and the Kern County shooting. AFTER the shootings students interviewed said things like "I'm not surprised it was him" or "I knew who it was as soon as I heard the gunshots." This is a bright red flag if I've ever seen or heard one.
Ban the weapons access at least temporarily.If that is true then he should have been reported so why wasn't he? Did he see a mental health professional if so then why wasn't something done then? This is nothing new, they have and have had the responsibility to report these things.
That is a question for the ages. It really is.
As things now stand a person isn't forced to see a mental health professional unless a judge makes such an order. And usually that's due to some violent behavior not motivated by the usual reasons.
Now I know of some people who have gone because friends or family has basically said "Dude, somethings wrong. See someone."
"Warning Signs of Violent Acts Often Unclear"
"No one but a deeply disturbed individual marches into an elementary school or a movie theater and guns down random, innocent people....
"New York State legislators on Tuesday passed a gun bill that would require therapists to report to the authorities any client thought to be “likely to engage in” violent behavior; under the law, the police would confiscate any weapons the person had....
" One fundamental problem with looking for “warning signs” is that it is more art than science. People with serious mental disorders, while more likely to commit aggressive acts than the average person, account for only about 4 percent of violent crimes over all.
"The rate is higher when it comes to rampage or serial killings, closer to 20 percent, according to Dr. Michael Stone, a New York forensic psychiatrist who has a database of about 200 mass and serial killers. He has concluded from the records that about 40 were likely to have had paranoid schizophrenia or severe depression or were psychopathic, meaning they were impulsive and remorseless.
" “But most mass murders are done by working-class men who’ve been jilted, fired, or otherwise humiliated — and who then undergo a crisis of rage and get out one of the 300 million guns in our country and do their thing,” Dr. Stone said.
"The sort of young, troubled males who seem to psychiatrists most likely to commit school shootings — identified because they have made credible threats — often do not qualify for any diagnosis, experts said. They might have elements of paranoia, of deep resentment, or of narcissism, a grandiose self-regard, that are noticeable but do not add up to any specific “disorder” according to strict criteria...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/healt … lness.html
Comment: A policy that requires a therapist to report to a state or federal agency concern over a patient's likelihood of committing a violent act requires a difficult balance between public safety and patient privacy.Are you saying the rights of that individual are more important than keeping children safe? I think mental health professionals are already required to report individuals they believe present a danger.
As the article I linked said, predicting who will commit a violent or suicidal act is not easy, and tightening doctors' reporting requirements on their patients and creating a federal data base may discourage people from seeking needed treatment out of fear of becoming labeled and stigmatized as a result, as has happened in some cases as a result of sex offender data bases maintained in some states (e.g., as in Michigan which has included on a publicly accessible data base an 18 year-old boy who has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend along with serial rapists).
I agree that it will deter some to seek help, but if they come in and are asked if they feel they are suicidal or possibly homicidal then they should be reported. Nobody should guess at what someone is thinking.
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm sure there will be lawsuits and perhaps Supreme Court decisions on these issues. The N. Y. state law signed by Cuomo on this topic contains a strong reporting requirement which is likely to be challenged.
This is something hard to understand. It certainly took me a long time, But many people with serious mental health problems think they are normal. So asking someone who is clearly mentally disturbed if they are suicidal or homicidal can be an exercise in futility. They honestly may not know.
Actually it's a professional call. If the psychology professional has some doubt as to the seriousness of the claim they can ignore it. But the real problem is potential law suits and suit involved malpractice. They need some legal protection.
Several people have expressed the opinion that, in effect, the horse is out of the barn on assault weapons and big magazines, etc., because it would be impossible to take the millions of these weapons out of circulation. Well, Australia did it and so can we. Here's how:
"To make this plan work, there had to be a federally financed gun buyback scheme. Ultimately, the cost of the buyback was met by a special one-off tax imposed on all Australians. This required new legislation and was widely accepted across the political spectrum. Almost 700,000 guns were bought back and destroyed — the equivalent of 40 million guns in the United States....
"In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Journal of Law and Economics found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.
"Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.
"John Howard was prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opini … ef=opinion"Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control."
I don't see that as surprising at all. Scream "GUN DEATHS DOWN!" loud enough and often enough while very carefully failing to mention that murder rates did not drop at all and you will easily convince a gullible public that a gun ban was effective.
After all, the tactic (scream loudly about irrelevant matters) works well in the US and I really don't think the Aussies are any smarter than we are (apologies to the "down-unders", but I don't).
Or do you think there is a different reason for being careful to mention only "gun homicides rates", "gun suicide rates" and "gun massacres"?
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Sorry Ralph !.............................."Shall not be infringed "
Massachusetts may require firearm insurance if upcoming legislation is passed.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/ … requi.htmlYou mean like most states require car insurance if you want to drive on the public roads?
Scream that "guns aren"t the problem, people are" enough times and the general public is gullible enough to believe that also! What is it with many of the pro-gun advocates anyway? Is it that hard to see where having some restrictions or regulations could be helpful? Would it really be better if everyone was carrying ALL OF THE TIME?
Don't know. What is the experience of other places where that has been tried? What is the experience of places with strict and heavy regulations?
The second question we can answer - there is no change in homicide rates. Are the regulations helpful then? You'll have to answer for yourself - will you use that information or make some up out of thin air?Guns are not the problem! I have never heard of a case where a gun drove to a school or any other place and just started shooting, it has never happened.
Weird huh?Agreed. Easy access to guns is the problem. Again - we agree. Limit gun access to protect the children!
Odd, I seem to be arguing the opposite, so with that information you should now realize we do not agree.
Sorry - I thought you wanted to protect the children. My mistake.
Why do you hate them so much?Sorry I thought you understood guns were inanimate objects and could only be used when being held by a human.
Why don't you want to protect children from killers?Why don't you want universal background checks so we can do just that; keep weapons out of the hands of killers?
I do. I think we should take guns away from them. Guns don't kill anyone. People with easy access to guns kill people. Take the gun away from the human and we have a non-killer.
We do agree after all!Really? People won't kill if they don't have a gun? You should win the Nobel Prize for that astute observation.
Really? It is no easier to kill with a gun?
Odd you need a gun then. Why not get a pencil instead - that is just as effective. We should issue all teachers with pencils.
Great idea - thanks.I personally think killers should use over-ripe tomatoes...you know...for effect.
There you go. That would be just as effective as a gun as an inanimate object.
It is easier to kill with a gun, I can't run fast enough to take down a buck with a pencil, but killers don't seem to have a hard time taking children down with knives as evidenced in China on at least two occasions.
Why would you want children harmed with knives, Is that better than a gun to you?None of those children in China died. Some lost fingers, but none lost their lives. I'd say that's a difference.
Well a bloody stabbing is much more personal and messy. This may be why guns are so popular. Get a little distance and there's less (or no) cleaning up afterward.Children did not die in the latest attack but did so in the first. So maiming children is acceptable to you? Interesting.
Of course it's not acceptable. I'm just trying to point out that the "China argument" is deeply flawed.
No it isn't children died and they died from a man wielding a knife.
I'm not able to find any deaths from knife attacks in China. Twenty-two children and one adult WOUNDED, but no deaths. I may not have found it though due to how old that particular story is.
Its wikipedia but it still happened.
On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng (郑民生)[2] 41, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_att … %932012%29
Gosh. How sad that you think I want children harmed at all. I agree - take away the knives as well.
Thank you for suggesting it. LAWL that you bring up China.
http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.htmlYou don't want to protect children so I assume you don't care what happens to them.
Should we take away cars, trains, planes, bones in meat? Maybe we should just put padding on everything so nobody gets hurt!What do cars have to do with murdering children in school? Sorry you don't care.
Cars are involved in the death of children everyday.
Really? People intentionally murder children in schools with cars? I did not know that.
I would have thought a gun would be easier.
Enlighten me.
So you can't run fast enough to take down a buck? Ok so a gun makes it easier, and you call that hunting, a sport? It's not a sport when it's that freaking easy. Wearing camouflage,, sitting in a tree, or hiding, and then using a high powered rifle with a scope has nothing to do with sport. Is that what you use your AR-15 for also?
Might come in handy if I ever drive my AR-15 on a public road.
As you may remember I suggested this earlier. If you don't like it though I suggested you take that up with the Massachusetts legislature. Oh, and they haven't passed that law...yet...if ever.
Exactly, that gun really is good for much is it? Can't even drive it to work or out for dinner. Guess it may be useful to shoot at a tree in your back yard or something.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
Gentlemen ,These are the facts about guns ,
-There are now thousands of gun laws on the books -
- And given that criminals and nuts don't consider even one law why have more ?
-As you discribe "assault weapons " as being the problemo , consider this An assualt weapon is but a term for the phisical appearances of semi- auto matic guns , An ar-15 , a revolver , a semi auto pistol all act in the same manor , one pull of the trigger = one bullet fired . period !
-Magazine capacity = conseidering that five round magezines can be changed out in about two seconds to another five round magazine ......what good does it do to limit sizes.....5 10 20 100 ....it doesn't matter !
-Even if you went magical and "poof " all the guns in the world just dissapeared , criminals and mentally violent people are going to kill !
_Lucid dreams , your right ,........"scream..... and the general public will believe anything " like this , another freaking hundred gun laws are going to change absolutely nothing ! - ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
I am also sure of one thing , anti gun wackos are never going to get with reality, period , and thats why nothing ever changes , they don't focus on the correct and on the real issues ! !
So with that being said, we should all have guns, I mean without changing anything, we all have the right under the second amendment right? What is reality anyway, that nothing can be done so business as usual?
With a distorted outlike like this, you may be right, everyone will eventually have to carry a gun because IT'S OUR RIGHT and the only way to protect ourselves from all of the WHACKOS who should not be carrying.
Seems like the anti-gun whckos just want to improve things SOMEHOW, while the pro-gun WACKOS would be more then happy to keep things as they are and blame everything but guns. Talk about a love affair with guns.....what's up with that. Kind of weird!Not sure if you noticed the the common problem is GUNS! We have to have guns to protect ourselves from people with GUNS!
Sorry but violent crime has been down in those states that allow conceal carry so the anti-gun folks are wrong again.
Well, kind of anyway. The anti group just wants SOMETHING done whether we can reasonably expect any results or not. Only the appearance of action counts. Keeps the masses quiet and soothes the conscience you know.
At least until someone points out that it didn't help...That's kind of funny but the truth is, results are what people want. Isn't it better to try versus just throwing up your arms and saying.....we can't do anything!~
It's crazy how the pro-gunniies will tell you nope, wont work, nope, not doing that, nope, that will infringe upon my rights to carry a gun. They all seem to think that those of us who want to work on a solution to the abosultely CRAZY amount of gun violence in the USA are mis-informed somehow, or will not face reality.
Guess what ....if you won't add to a solution, YOU are part of the problem! What has been happening is not acceptible to most. If you think that the majority of the people who want to see something done "THAT MAY HELP" are mis-informed or out-of-touch somehow, that's pretty sad indeed!Our constitutional rights are more important than your irrational fear of guns.
It seems your side is the one with the irrational fear. You all seem convinced that there are armed bad guys just waiting around every corner to shoot you so you must have your own guns.
"Editor
"Detroit Free Press
"Contrary to some opinions expressed in last Sunday's letters to the editor, the Second Amendment is subject to differing interpretations and doesn't preclude reasonable and practical restrictions on the sale, use and possession of guns.
"The people who claimed a need for assault weapons to resist government tyranny fail to understand that the main sources of tyranny today are under-regulated banks, drug companies, parasitic health care insurance companies, for-profit medical providers and the Koch brothers and other billionaires whose money pollutes American democracy.
"The NRA's recommendation that police or armed guards be stationed at schools would be poor policy, aside from increased cost and doubtful effectiveness, because the police would inevitably become involved, on their own initiative or on request from teachers, in student disciplinary matters better handled by teachers and school administrators.
"Ralph Deeds,
Birmingham"
http://www.freep.com/article/20130119/O … y=nav|headWhoisit
That comment is rediculous. Irrational fear of guns? GUNS kill people....iT'S NOT IRRATIONAL. Your complete disregard for finding a qualified solution versus just crying, OUR RIGHT'S ARE MORE IMPORTANT just goes to the point why people are concerened that PEOPLE like YOU have the right to own a gun!Like I said irrational fear of guns, you actually think guns kill people. My constitutional rights are far more important than your irrational fears.
"GUNS kill people."
No, they really don't. (I'm actually rather surprised to see this coming from you, Lucid--you're usually pretty level-headed.)
What guns do is make it a whole heck of a lot easier for a person to kill other people.
The distinction may seem nit-pick-y, but it's really not.
Guns don't kill people; they make it easier for people to kill people. And some guns are a lot more efficient at this than others. But even the most efficient gun can't kill anyone on its own.
A big part of our gun problem is that there are so many guns lying around where just any old person can get ahold of them, regardless of whether they're a criminal, mentally ill, or underage. If everyone who owned a gun were to store them responsibly, I bet we'd see a big decrease in the number of gun-related homicides.
Likewise, if we were to scatter a truckload of loaded guns around pretty much any major city, I bet we'd see a big uptick in gun-related homicides.
Oh, I fully understand you want something done; that's what I said.
What you don't want is to examine the problem for an actual answer. The answer you want and demand to use is self evident, is common sense and is totally contradicted by experience everywhere else in the world. So use it anyway - it is something, whether useful or not. Yeah, I get it.
I totally get it.Again, Ralph? Mental illness needs looked at, perhaps tied to background checks for guns. It is possible that the correlation between banning mind altering substances and violent deaths (alcohol, marijuana) indicate a causal effect - look into this. Some serious work on finding out if violence in TV, video games and/or sports is contributing. Possibly provide jobs instead of welfare (keep people busy with work instead of free time). Serious effort into teaching our children to handle emotional upset instead of sheltering them from it.
Note that all are aimed at finding the cause of violence in America; along with that of course is finding a solution. None are aimed at eliminating one particular tool used, whether it be guns, cars, knives or anything else. Removal of any or all of the tools will merely result in different tools being used without ever finding or attacking the cause. They are stop gaps only and will, in the long run, do little if any good.
*edit* I would also say that there have got to be dozens of other possible points of attack/research. Those are from the top of one persons head only.I'm in agreement with the point that there is no silver bullet. A variety of measures will be needed to deal with multiple issues, some easier than others. I like Australia's approach. With their buyback program they were able to get the equivalent in the U.S. of 40 million guns off the street. Of course they aren't burdened with the same history as the U.S.
There is indeed no silver bullet and the problem needs multiple solutions as there are multiple causes.
Australia: unfortunately it took 8 years to see any significant decrease in the homicide rate. Given that the guns were collected over a much shorter time span it seems unlikely that the buyback was a significant factor in the lowering of the violence there; something else almost certainly came into play. Other govt programs, a changing economy, changing society, different demographics as cities grew; something. The problem is in isolating it and the problem is made much worse as there were almost certainly multiple reasons for the decrease. It might pay us to take a long, hard look at anything that happened in that country between 1996 and 2004.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.htmlI believe it's misleading to cite only the homicide rate. All gun deaths should be counted--accidents and suicides.
Here's an op-ed by John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia, on gun control there.
"...In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.
"Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opini … n-too.htmlThat is the point!!!! Not that other violence could not and will not occur, these people consider their country MORE SAFE NOW!
Remember when we went over those same stats before? A very careful claim about gun murders, gun suicides and gun mass killings but absolutely nothing about overall homicide rates kind of describes the agenda being looked at and it isn't a decrease in murders.
On the other hand, the link I gave graphs the murder rate in Australia for the years before and after the buyback; no real change for 8 years is a pretty strong statement that it was ineffective in lowering the homicide rate. Unless, as I've mentioned before, you think a corpse cares how it was killed?
Kind of seems as if you are satisfied with just keeping things as is?
We obviously cannot solve the USA gun violence problem within this forum. Even so, why does it seem like the pro-gun is content to just keep things as is? Apparently, there is no problem from thier point of view!
Do you believe that gun laws will effectively lower the murder rate in the US? Can you point to anywhere that it has? Lots of countries in the world with varying gun ownership rates; comparing those countries to themselves does lower gun ownership result in fewer murders? No? Why do you think it will work here, then?
Why does it seem that the anti-gun group is far more interested in getting rid of guns than stopping the carnage on our streets? They have to know that gun laws won't solve anything - why do they insist on those laws? Are they living in a make believe world where things happen just because they want them to?I could show statistics where it works and most likely, you could provide statistics showing that it does not. Like I said, to pro gun activists, there is no solution but keeping their guns. In the end, it is very obvious that guns are paramount to anything else and trying to change that fact is like trying to take their children away.
I know you can show stats where one country has fewer guns plus fewer murders. Just as I can show a pair the opposite way for any pair you find. The proper conclusion, then, is that there is no correlation. Two countries mean nothing and when we look at multiple countries we can see this very easily and it becomes clear that there is no connection between the number of guns and the number of murders in a country.
Now you can choose to assign a cause of the murders to be guns in spite of that lack of correlation, but it doesn't fly. The only connection is one you have made up without facts to back it and, based on that connection, you wish to take rights from people. It becomes very obvious that the end goal is to remove guns; that decreasing the murder rate is simply an excuse to do so. An excuse, but not a reason,
I fully understand you don't like guns, I highly doubt you have any, and you don't understand why others want them. None of that is a reason for denying rights though, whether you take advantage of the right or not.
Actually, from my interactions, most agree that universal background checks and better efforts toward understanding and preventing those with mental health problems having access to firearms are both good ideas.
Part of the problem is that any talk of "gun control" (it's really access to guns control) brings out the views closest to the heart of the debater.
Whosis, though he is quite firm about gun rights, agrees that universal background checks are not a bad idea.
Wilderness, is pretty clear about where stands on background checks and mental health issues.
Part of it is both sides are expressing resistance based on deepest fears. Another part is simply talking past each other. It takes time to get to know each person's entire view on topics like this, but I have reason to believe that those who seem to be expressing the most resistance to any change have, in fact, agreed that some change is needed. They just don't want to see total bans.
And in truth neither do I.
There are a LOT of RESPONSIBLE gun owners out there.
They should not be penalized because of nut-cases with guns or the rare irresponsible extremist.Yes, a few do and it is most refreshing. Liam is exactly right - most people are in favor of some further control over the indiscriminate proliferation of guns and that includes me.
Unfortunately, the majority don't seem to think things through. Ban assault guns, but won't define what that is. All guns are bad - limit them as much as possible. Inevitable pictures of guns that are black and scary looking but are no more deadly than an ordinary hunting rifle. Screams of "Over my dead body" from the other side with no attempt to compromise.
If we could just set aside unreasoned prejudices and talk rationally most of that nonsense will disappear into the thin air it is composed of.I'm not sure it's the majority either. I think we are all over the board on this one.
By the way, know who has not committed to bringing the assault weapon ban to the floor of the senate? Harry Reid...Senate Majority Leader and Democrat. As I said he too is a gun enthusiast.I think it may have more to do with his constituency.
"Reid is not aspiring to be the face of the Democratic Party, or even its voice. “I know my limitations,” he said, and added, “I haven’t gotten where I am by my good looks, my athletic ability, my great brain, my oratorical skills.” Reid is a Mormon, and differs with most of his Democratic colleagues on social issues. He is opposed to abortion, gay marriage, and gun control, and supports the death penalty. He voted for both Persian Gulf wars. At a time when the White House and Congress are controlled by Republicans, Reid’s essential role is defensive—to hold the line for his party when the Bush agenda threatens to trample what Democrats most value."
From this New Yorker article;
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/0 … table=true
When they say something stupid, you bet I will.
This whole debate creates a target-rich environment for anyone who takes glee in pointing out stupid stuff.That's because nobody has made the claim that guns kill indiscriminately (though it is a common strawman from the gun-worshipping crowd).
I haven't seen lucid make that claim; though it's possible that I've missed it.
Look, when someone who points out stupid arguments spends a lot of time pointing at arguments coming from your side of the discussion, that could be explained by more than just bias. It could also be that folks on your side of the discussion make stupid arguments more often.
Just saying.No, they just make it a whole heck of a lot easier for a person to kill. (That's what they were designed to do, after all.)
Yes, that is what they were designed to do, but they were not designed to kill schoolchildren. That is a man made concoction.
"... they were not designed to kill schoolchildren."
Really? 'Cos they sure were effective tools for it. Why? 'Cos schoolchildren are people.
But you'll probably try to tell me that a gun is just a tool, and no more deadly than a crescent wrench or something.....Are you the same person who said this?
""GUNS kill people."
No, they really don't. (I'm actually rather surprised to see this coming from you, Lucid--you're usually pretty level-headed.)"
Then you said this
"But you'll probably try to tell me that a gun is just a tool, and no more deadly than a crescent wrench or something....."
That is exactly what I will tell you because unlike you I am consistent. Of course a gun can be deadly just like a crescent wrench.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Alderman
On 14 June 1975 he was convicted for his part in the killing of his wife Barbara Jean Alderman and given the death sentence by the Superior Court of Chatham County, Georgia. His wife was beaten to death with a crescent wrench and choked before being dumped into a creek."That is exactly what I will tell you because unlike you I am [an ideologue who will say all kinds of ridiculous things in support of my ridiculous ideas--heck, I'll even say that a crescent wrench is just as deadly as a gun]."
There, fixed it for you.
"Of course a gun can be deadly just like a crescent wrench."
What you mean is, a crescent wrench can be used to kill people, but isn't the ideal tool for the job. A gun, however, is designed to kill people.
Nobody dies because they didn't check to see if their crescent wrench was loaded, or because their crescent wrench went off accidentally, or used a crescent wrench in a school....I wanna say "torquing?"
Sheesh. Guns don't kill people--that's true.
But at the same time, guns are designed to kill people, and people who leave loaded guns lying around kill people (with their negligence), and people who use guns irresponsibly kill people (because of their recklessness).
People who leave their crescent wrenches lying around are just slobs.
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
It baffles me why most of you are so influenced by denial of reality , It is man ! Man ! Man ! ....That is the evil ! And even women aren't as violent as men ! Yet its the men here that blame the inanimate object before he looks within !......such strange behavior !
"Yet its the men here that blame the inanimate object"
I don't think anybody proposed that the firearms used at Sandy Hook should be punished.....
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
No Jeff ,of course not ....ya .....lets just ban them !.....I mean we all know the gun is the culprit here ! Right ? What I am saying ,and you all know this , everyone does , yet no one will say it . A health care system for resolving issues and threats of mentaly challenged people --non existant !.....A legal system that actually punishes perptrators of crimes ----nonexistant . An eduction system that actually protects your children from some fool walking in the front door with a weapon ?---non existant . A reporting system that ties mental health officials , law enforcment and parents together in resolution of just this kind of tragedy ---nope , not in place either !.........But hey , we can all blame the gun and after all everybody knows its the NRA's fault ! .....After all ,..... to have a handy target eliminates your sense of responsibility for your share of our shared cultural guilt ! Right ?
This is precisely the problem that needs to be addressed. A man is sentenced to commitment to a mental hospital for killing his mother with a shot-gun in 1995. He is eventually released back into society and promptly obtains a gun permit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/2 … 17064.html"That shotgun needs to be put in jail!"
---Said nobody ever.
Yes, we need a better mental health system, where people who need treatment get treatment, and people who shouldn't have a gun don't get to buy one.
We also need a way to make sure that people don't do an end-run around the system so they can get a gun when they shouldn't. That means when a gun finds its way into the hands of a disturbed person, the person who gave/sold him that gun needs to be held responsible.
Of course, all of this needs to be paid for. Should we have, say, a 5% excise tax on gun purchases to cover the cost of these tracking systems? Suggest that to your friendly neighborhood gun enthusiast and see what he says.
And while you're at it, see how he feels about a gun dealer (or private citizen) being held accountable for selling/giving a gun to a disturbed person who uses it to hurt someone.
Dollars to to donuts, he'll tell you he doesn't like it (or words to that effect).The man who shot the New York firefighters was a convicted felon who murdered his grandmother in 1980.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/justice/n … index.html
Just happened this afternoon. Shooting at Lone Star College North Harris campus in the outskirts of Houston. No details yet.
"Gun Lovers Freak over Obama's Executive Actions"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … tions.htmlWhat a surprise that the pro-gunnies and far right Republicans are throwing a fit? Their arguments would be laughable if the topic was not so serious!
Related Discussions
- 386
Gunman Takes the Life of a 1-year-old Child
by SpanStar 10 years ago
A 1-year-old baby girl shot to death by a Gunman who was shooting at a babysitter carrying the child running away.http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08 … lence?liteI wonder what other countries think of a country who continuously incur innocent men, women and children murdered needlessly...
- 539
Connecticut School Shooting Leaves at Least 27 Dead Children
by news-usa 11 years ago
NEWTOWN, Conn. (AP) — A gunman opened fire inside a Connecticut elementary school where his mother worked Friday, killing at least 26 people, including 18 children, by blasting his way through the building as young students cowered helplessly in classrooms while their teachers and classmates were...
- 108
Newtown (Sandy Hook Shootings)
by Mike Russo 10 years ago
Today marks six months since the Sandy Hook shootings. Over 5,000 people have been killed by guns since then. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … oting.htmlWhat are your thoughts?
- 42
Why are so many people shot and killed by police officers?
by Mike Russo 7 years ago
It's because of the "Use of Force Model" that has been adopted by law enforcement from the military Many cops across the country have been trained in this use of force model. It works like this. A cop approaches a suspect and gives the suspect some type of order. If the...
- 13
What would happen if you killed someone who knew Martial Arts?
by Alem Belton 12 years ago
What would happen if you killed someone who knew Martial Arts?I just had a thought. If you were fighting someone who knows Martial Arts would you attempt to kill them if you had the chance? And if so do you think you would be found innocent by self defense? Think about it for a...
- 37
Who Will cry for this one ?
by ahorseback 8 years ago
Let's see just how long this death will stay in the news , a man who could never say ," I will see you tonight Mom " . Killed while on duty in NY City last week . Let's see if our media remembers for more than the usual...