gun control rant thread

yamaha wrote: They'd have them soon enough though. As pointed out before, chances are our military wouldn't turn on the people.

Soooo, the point of the 2nd amendment is what then?

If what you state is the realistic truth (which I believe also), then there is no need a "well regulated militia" you just need a armed military.

This is my entire point. Either you believe the 2nd amendment is for armed resistance and treat it as such (in which case you need to allow heavier weapons).

Or you treat it as a self-defense statement and restrict what is allowed.

Doing this of course means you are re-interpreting it, which goes against the common sentiment that you must follow the amendment exactly as stated, no room for compromise.

And just to restate, so I don't get jumped on. I am NOT trying to justify the elimination of ARs, I really don't think that will have any effect. I am just trying to explore the seemingly inconstant manner in how the 2nd amendment seems to be interpreted / applied.

I'm not sure how, even if it was possible, eleimating 600 deaths a year in a country of 311 million people because of a rifle is really worth that effort when more people are kicked to death each year.

How about we go back to the root of the problem rather than the result? Seriously. I'm not kidding. Where's the Prezbo's Task Force for Mental Health?

EDIT: Sorry, that would be 300 deaths a year. Or .000113% of our population.

Bobzilla wrote: I'm not sure how, even if it was possible, eleimating 600 deaths a year in a country of 311 million people because of a rifle is really worth that effort when more people are kicked to death each year. How about we go back to the root of the problem rather than the result? Seriously. I'm not kidding. Where's the Prezbo's Task Force for Mental Health? EDIT: Sorry, that would be 300 deaths a year. Or .000113% of our population.

Wait, what? You want personal accountability standards to be implemented by those who minimize them?

aircooled wrote: The amendment says "arms" not "guns". Clearly in that time, the most advanced arms where guns, so you might imply that. But when you take the apparent purpose of those arms (ability to revolt) it seems like that would clearly imply arms capable of performing that revolt or resistance.

They had cannons back then as well. While we had some armories and foundries here, quite a bit still came from Europe as well which was pretty much available to anyone who was willing to pay.

Back during the Civil War, our govt was rather conservative with regards to weapons and regular soldiers were not equiped with the most modern technology available. While muzzle-loading rifles were the norm, faster and more accurate breach-loading and repeating rifles were availble. One Union officer took it upon himself to arm his regiment with Spencer repeating rifles.

aircooled wrote: And just to restate, so I don't get jumped on. I am NOT trying to justify the elimination of ARs, I really don't think that will have any effect. I am just trying to explore the seemingly inconstant manner in how the 2nd amendment seems to be interpreted / applied.

That's basically what I was trying to say a few pages ago...

Gun Rights Groups Call For National Commission to Study Causes of Violence

http://www.guns.com/2012/12/19/gun-rights-groups-national-commission-study-violence-video/

To have effective resistance against the government (which is such a ridiculously remote possibility it is almost silly to make it a consideration) you would clearly need at least SOME sort of effective anti tank and anti air capabilities. Would you say it is appropriate for citizens to own such things? (e.g. AT missles, RPGs, Stingers, radar guided AA cannons etc.) So, I ask you (not that you can really answer it, but you know...) which way is it? Are we supposed to be armed to defend ourselves from each other (which does not appear to be the purpose of the amendment), or are we supposed to be armed to defend (or revolt) against our own government? Again, to reiterate. What I am getting to here is NOT that weapons need to be gotten rid of (even if you wanted to it is ridiculously impractical at this point), but that there is already an accepted limit set on the bearing of "arms".

I'm pretty happy with the current accepted limit set on "arms." Obviously, there has to be a "common sense" limit, just like there is on free speech. I can say "Go berkeley yourself you berkeleying E36 M3 ass." But I can't say "I'm going to berkeleying stab you in the face with a soldering iron."

aircooled said: The amendment says "arms" not "guns". Clearly in that time, the most advanced arms where guns, so you might imply that. But when you take the apparent purpose of those arms (ability to revolt) it seems like that would clearly imply arms capable of performing that revolt or resistance.

The 14th Amendment does a good job of clarifying; specifically so that states could not have laws preventing post-civil war blacks from carrying GUNS.

I'm not too terrified that reintroducing the assault weapons ban is some slippery slope in an effort to eventually take ALL guns away (though I do believe that is Feinstein's intent.) In reality, I think it's all for show, and that the timing is such that it's meant to back one side into a corner and say "IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR THIS YOU HATE THE LITTLE CHILDREN AND WANT THEM TO DIE!!!" That's pretty slimy, IMO, regardless of which side is playing that game.

This new "I mean, do you REALLY NEEEED semi-auto weapons" narrative has me a little freaked, only because with some of the radical legislation in the last 4 years (don't worry, I'm not going there,) I worry that a ban on semi-auto hand guns...or hand guns altogether, could be coming down the pike. We've already said as a country that we're more than happy to trade liberty for security. That scares me.

poopshovel wrote:

aircooled said: The amendment says "arms" not "guns"....

The 14th Amendment does a good job of clarifying; specifically so that states could not have laws preventing post-civil war blacks from carrying GUNS.

Do you have some more information on this? From what I can see the 14th amendment essentially says that the states cannot restrict Federal rights (one of which is the right to bear arms). It does not appear to directly address the right or the definition of what "arms" are?

How do you (or whomever) get "guns" out of this?

In reply to aircooled:

arm 2 (ärm) n. 1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms. 2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms. 3. arms. a. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders. b. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms. 4. arms. a. Heraldry Bearings. b. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization. v. armed, arm·ing, arms. v.intr. 1. To supply or equip oneself with weaponry. 2. To prepare oneself for warfare or conflict. v.tr. 1. To equip with weapons: armed themselves with loaded pistols; arm a missile with a warhead; arm a nation for war. 2. To equip with what is needed for effective action: tax advisers who were armed with the latest forms. 3. To provide with something that strengthens or protects: a space reentry vehicle that was armed with a ceramic shield. 4. To prepare (a weapon) for use or operation, as by releasing a safety device.

This is the closest you're going to get.

poopshovel wrote: This new "I mean, do you REALLY NEEEED semi-auto weapons" narrative has me a little freaked,I worry that a ban on semi-auto hand guns...or hand guns altogether, could be coming down the pike. We've already said as a country that we're more than happy to trade liberty for security. That scares me.

unless it's a single shot hand gun , wouldn't ANY handgun be considered semi-automatic (even revolvers ) ? in the sense that it fires each time you pull the trigger ... just like the "assault " weapon used at Sandy Hook

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

Long read, but Correia sums up all of my thoughts much better than I can.

poopshovel wrote: I'm not too terrified that reintroducing the assault weapons ban is some slippery slope in an effort to eventually take ALL guns away (though I do believe that is Feinstein's intent.) In reality, I think it's all for show, and that the timing is such that it's meant to back one side into a corner and say "IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR THIS YOU HATE THE LITTLE CHILDREN AND WANT THEM TO DIE!!!" That's pretty slimy, IMO, regardless of which side is playing that game.

This. I have a problem with the NRA or the people who flaunt their AR style weapons on TV. They are doing a bang up job of making gun owners look like mouth breathing idiots. Maybe if they toned it down a bit there could be a more rational public discussion but I don't see that happening.

I have an even bigger problem with the most vocal voices of gun control. Don't tell me what I need or don't need. Don't equate me to a psycho killer just because I disagree with you. I'm scared that the gun control extremists have just gained the upper hand.

I have an even bigger problem with the most vocal voices of gun control. Don't tell me what I need or don't need. Don't equate me to a psycho killer just because I disagree with you. I'm scared that the gun control extremists have just gained the upper hand.

This.

The problem I DO have is that every single weapon is considered an "assault rifle". Give me a friggin break. The weapon isn't assaulting anyone. I may not NEED to have my H&K G3. I may not NEED to have my tactial Remington 870 12 gauge. I may not NEED to have my .40 S&W pistol. But what I do NEED is to keep my freedom to buy and own whatever I want. I also NEED people to keep their opinions of what others NEED to have to themselves. (Please do not take this as pointed to ANYONE on this board. I'm making a blanket statement about all the crap I'm hearing on Facebook. I love all you guys.)

The Bill of Rights gives us freedoms that are guranteed in this country. Freedom of speach, religion, and the right to bare arms are among the most debated and most tried. If you want to say I don't NEED to have certain weapons, then we need to start telling people they don't NEED to use profanity or racial slurs. They don't NEED to worship satan. These are all things that are subject to the individual.

I've been watching all the news stories and the biggest one to stick in my head and piss me off more than anything is the one that popped up and said, "Who is to blame for the Sandy Hook shooting?" Who the f*** do you think?! The jerk who shot them all. Quit trying to blame everything on everyone else and put it where it belongs. This guy shot these kids. Not the gun, not my rifle at my house. It took his hands to load the mags, to pull back the slide, and to pull the trigger. His hands. The blame rests on him and him alone. End of story, end of debate, end of everything. If he walked in there with a damn blunderbuss and fired it off and killed 30 people, where would the argument go? Ban blunderbusses? Ugh...

Conquest351 wrote: The Bill of Rights gives us freedoms that are guranteed in this country. Freedom of speach, religion, and the right to bare arms are among the most debated and most tried.

I don't think the debating is going to end anytime soon, and I think that's a good thing. (A good spot to thank everyone on the thread again for being willing to have a civil discussion.)

I think the tendency for people to hiss and grow scales when faced with opposing views is among the greatest threats we have. An earnest, respectful argument, even with the occasional raised voice, engenders a better environment than when folks only talk to their own side and demonize the people they disagree with.

wbjones wrote: unless it's a single shot hand gun , wouldn't ANY handgun be considered semi-automatic (even revolvers ) ? in the sense that it fires each time you pull the trigger ... just like the "assault " weapon used at Sandy Hook

Yes. And this is what we have to think about when people say, "BAN GUNS!" I don't like the fact that I carry a gun at both my jobs, but I'm glad I have the right to because I feel safe.Here. Take a look at crime in my area.

Don't have a lot to add to this, other than being surprised (in a good way) by the tone of the discussion. I don't want ot ban guns and I don't think most people do. I've heard a lot of responsible gun owners say things over the years that make a lot of sense. A lot of people seem to agree that education and training are important, and proper, safe storage is a responsibility that comes with owning a gun. It seems like there are areas there that could be crafted into some kind of a law a lot of peopel could support and might help.

Personally, I think guns are too easy to get. I'd like to see mandatory training and background checks for eveyone. Honestly, I'd just like to see some hurdles to clear so you have to be pretty serious to get a gun. I do think that would help for a lot of reasons.

And I really agree with what mapper just said. Responsible gun owners I know treat them very seiously and respect them and they encourage others to do the same. When I see them treated as toys or with casual disregard it kind of ticks me off. I wish gun enthusiasts would lead the charge on that.

There are some threads here that I think make that mistake, at least judging by the titles. I've done a pretty good job of saying out of them, so don't know what's happening in there. But I'd hope some gun enthusianst would jump in there and say "this probably isn't how we need to be protraying ourselves right now". But I've pushed my luck enough just looking at this thread.

some decent statistics

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/daniel-zimmerman/duwain-whitis/

JoeyM wrote: some decent statistics http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/daniel-zimmerman/duwain-whitis/

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Personally, I think guns are too easy to get. I'd like to see mandatory training and background checks for eveyone. Honestly, I'd just like to see some hurdles to clear so you have to be pretty serious to get a gun. I do think that would help for a lot of reasons. And I really agree with what mapper just said. Responsible gun owners I know treat them very seiously and respect them and they encourage others to do the same. When I see them treated as toys or with casual disregard it kind of ticks me off. I wish gun enthusiasts would lead the charge on that.

Agreed on all of this.

N Sperlo wrote:

JoeyM wrote: some decent statistics http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/daniel-zimmerman/duwain-whitis/

Not sure if you realize that makes the previous assault weapons ban of '94(a complete joke if you read the limitations) as being effective if you want to spin that to the non-gun advocate perspective.

Grizz wrote: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/ Long read, but Correia sums up all of my thoughts much better than I can.

Wow! Way long...I almost didn't read it because of that, but it is very well stated. He's preaching to the choir, but it is the most eloquent preaching....

I just finished the Correia post as well, very well put.

aircooled wrote: Soooo, the point of the 2nd amendment is what then? If what you state is the realistic truth (which I believe also), then there is no need a "well regulated militia" you just need a armed military. This is my entire point. Either you believe the 2nd amendment is for armed resistance and treat it as such (in which case you need to allow heavier weapons).

You're thinking about this way too hard.......militia's haven't technically existed in our nation since the philosophy was adopted after the Civil War to go to other nations and berkeley their E36 M3 up there.....

Any said "Militia" in modern thinking is a thought of last resort in addition to the military. I'm just pointing out the difference in your interpretation, and the lack of comprehension on what a militia is in the first place. It is not the military....PERIOD.

That said, I view the constitution as it is written......everything should be on the table. And aside from weapons with classified things or post '86 machine guns, I believe almost everything can be purchased via NFA rules. Explosives are considered destructive devices and subject to the $200 tax stamp. The whole issue is the general public cannot go out and buy a modern high tech drone or a crate of grenades without having way too much money to waste.

Everything aside, I'm getting a feeling the NRA is about to double cross everyone again.......Just like in '86.

aircooled wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

aircooled said: The amendment says "arms" not "guns"....

The 14th Amendment does a good job of clarifying; specifically so that states could not have laws preventing post-civil war blacks from carrying GUNS.

Do you have some more information on this? From what I can see the 14th amendment essentially says that the states cannot restrict Federal rights (one of which is the right to bear arms). It does not appear to directly address the right or the definition of what "arms" are? How do you (or whomever) get "guns" out of this?

One of the purposes of the 14th Amendment was to reverse the effects of the Dredd Scott Supreme Court decision. Here's a small bit from Wikipedia explaining the relevance: "One of the early political battles over the right to firearms involved the rights of slaves to carry firearms in the United States; the battle over the rights of slaves resulted in political battles, in the aftermath of the 1856 Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford that denied Negroes the full rights of citizenship.[33][34] In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) (the "Dred Scott Decision"), the Supreme Court indicated that: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union ... the full liberty ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went."