He doesn't like GUNS.

[james&olya 1,121]

Gary, your tenuous grasp of this topic is shocking to say the least. What is even worse is that you don't even grasp the context and original intent of the second amendment. Sad really.

While I understand the point of view, I am not sure I can agree factually with this. I think it becomes apparent when you read the context of this ambiguously worded amendment that it was ambiguous by design. The controversy over whether widespread private gun ownership was in the best interest of society did not begin recently. The second amendment suffered from being crafted in such a way that it could be supported by people with widely disparate views on this subject. Since its passage the interpretation by the highest court of the land has taken us in the direction of those who wanted the meaning centered on the last half of that single sentence as opposed to the first half. It could have gone the other way, ....but it didn't. Supreme court precedent being what it is there is no way now to reverse that. The issue now is how far do we go with 'the right to bear arms'. I worry about the ever-increasing destructive power in the hands of some very unstable individuals in society. They say just don't allow the mentally ill and felons to own guns. You and I know that is impossible but we are stuck with it. There are no easy answers that will work.

[The_Dude 1,142]

While I understand the point of view, I am not sure I can agree factually with this. I think it becomes apparent when you read the context of this ambiguously worded amendment that it was ambiguous by design. The controversy over whether widespread private gun ownership was in the best interest of society did not begin recently. The second amendment suffered from being crafted in such a way that it could be supported by people with widely disparate views on this subject. Since its passage the interpretation by the highest court of the land has taken us in the direction of those who wanted the meaning centered on the last half of that single sentence as opposed to the first half. It could have gone the other way, ....but it didn't. Supreme court precedent being what it is there is no way now to reverse that. The issue now is how far do we go with 'the right to bear arms'. I worry about the ever-increasing destructive power in the hands of some very unstable individuals in society. They say just don't allow the mentally ill and felons to own guns. You and I know that is impossible but we are stuck with it. There are no easy answers that will work.

The ammendment is not ambiguous, it's fairly easy to read. Some people don't seem to comprehend how a comma can change the context of something. However, this is a moot point as the Heller decision essentially vacated any notion of original intent and redefined the second ammendment.

[Danno 1,228]

Gary, I don't have any problem with you or most people I know owning whatever guns you wish. But don't you see a problem developing eventually as the size and lethality of the weapons increase while the restrictions on ownership decrease? Will you be OK with everybody being allowed RPG's for example? What about vehicle mounted heavy machine guns? These are not ridiculous examples. Years ago many assumed that assault rifles and 'machine guns' would always have restrictions. It is impossible to effectively turn back the clock on weapon ownership so I don't think there is much chance that European style gun control will ever come here in the foreseeable future. But do we have to have ever increasing lethality in the weapons that are being allowed? When does it become too much?

I'm not really sure what you mean by "increasing lethality" in firearms?

While I only have a moderate interest in gun-facts, I do know fully auto guns are not sold off the shelf, without a special license.. which few people have.

The size of rounds in long guns seems to have gotten smaller.

I think a "large caliber" round would be a 45cal. for a HAND GUN. These were standard size a century ago.

Today, 9mm seems to sell more than 45 cal.

The only big change in all this time is the wider stack magazine which enable it to hold a few more rounds.

YOu suggested no one imagined people would own machine guns.

Since you didn;t throw out dates, I'm not sure how far back you are going but

THis was developed right at the end of WW1. 1919

It could be bought off the shelf until 1934.

it also fired the 45 cal.

The M-16 and m-4 which are so popular (though not fully automatic) shoot a much smaller round than did their WW2 grand father the M-1 Grande.

Even the A-K 47 has a newer version... the AK-74 which has reduced it's round size as well.

SO you see, fire arms look meaner.. but mechanically speaking it's a marvel not much has changed in 100 years, in fact that same 1911 hand gun, is still rather popular.

(I don't mind correction by the more knowledgeable on my facts)

[james&olya 1,121]

I'm not really sure what you mean by "increasing lethality" in firearms?

While I only have a moderate interest in gun-facts, I do know fully auto guns are not sold off the shelf, without a special license.. which few people have.

The size of rounds in long guns seems to have gotten smaller.

I think a "large caliber" round would be a 45cal. for a HAND GUN. These were standard size a century ago.

Today, 9mm seems to sell more than 45 cal.

The only big change in all this time is the wider stack magazine which enable it to hold a few more rounds.

YOu suggested no one imagined people would own machine guns.

Since you didn;t throw out dates, I'm not sure how far back you are going but

THis was developed right at the end of WW1. 1919

It could be bought off the shelf until 1934.

it also fired the 45 cal.

The M-16 and m-4 which are so popular (though not fully automatic) shoot a much smaller round than did their WW2 grand father the M-1 Grande.

Even the A-K 47 has a newer version... the AK-74 which has reduced it's round size as well.

SO you see, fire arms look meaner.. but mechanically speaking it's a marvel not much has changed in 100 years, in fact that same 1911 hand gun, is still rather popular.

(I don't mind correction by the more knowledgeable on my facts)

I don't claim to be an expert on guns. But I do know that military style 'assault' rifles are different than hunting rifles in ways that make them more efficient for soldiers to kill and maim their targets of choice! Why the constant drum-beat of attempts to roll back restrictions on different gun features? It is certainly not in an attempt to make these weapons less dangerous for the public at large! And this ongoing attempt to justify ownership based on the second amendment's wording about militias suggest the rationale that whatever makes a weapon good for the military is exactly what makes it legitimate to be privately owned by members of the general public. That is why I continue to ask people who are strong 2nd amendment advocates if they believe ANY limits on military weapon ownership by the general public are OK. Where do you draw the line? Seriously! Where would YOU draw the line?

[james&olya 1,121]

The ammendment is not ambiguous, it's fairly easy to read. Some people don't seem to comprehend how a comma can change the context of something. However, this is a moot point as the Heller decision essentially vacated any notion of original intent and redefined the second ammendment.

As so vocally discussed by '2nd amendment' advocates and based on the direction our courts seem to be heading, maybe the ambiguity could be lessened if we just dropped the 2nd and 3rd words of that single sentence amendment! I think I understand your thinking here and I would also prefer that these words were recognized as central to the understanding of this amendment. But there is at minimum a 'dynamic tension' and more accurately, I believe, contradiction between the first and second halves of the sentence! Regulations are increasingly being seen as 'interference' in that 'right' of the people to keep and bear arms!

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

I don't claim to be an expert on guns. But I do know that military style 'assault' rifles are different than hunting rifles in ways that make them more efficient for soldiers to kill and maim their targets of choice!

were that in bold true, hunters would use assault rifles for hunting. which brings us to your first sentence - that is true.

"military style" firearms are designed to be like a timex watch - take a licking and keep on ticking. rough use, not the most careful of handling by it's user, it can take far more abuse than the average hunting rifle. the trade off is - they are quite often not as accurate as hunting rifles. i personally can hit pie plates well past 300 meters with my hunting rifles - but won't even bother trying that with a military grade rifle.

now ask yourself this - which is really more dangerous: your average hunting rifle, or a military grade rifle?

i'd choose the first one.

Edited March 30, 2011 by charles!

[Danno 1,228]

I don't claim to be an expert on guns. But I do know that military style 'assault' rifles are different than hunting rifles in ways that make them more efficient for soldiers to kill and maim their targets of choice! Why the constant drum-beat of attempts to roll back restrictions on different gun features? It is certainly not in an attempt to make these weapons less dangerous for the public at large! And this ongoing attempt to justify ownership based on the second amendment's wording about militias suggest the rationale that whatever makes a weapon good for the military is exactly what makes it legitimate to be privately owned by members of the general public. That is why I continue to ask people who are strong 2nd amendment advocates if they believe ANY limits on military weapon ownership by the general public are OK. Where do you draw the line? Seriously! Where would YOU draw the line?

ONe need not be an expert to have an opinion but one should also make an effort to know the basics on the topic.

This educational clip will I think help clarify some of the details so you will better know the differences between Military assault weapons and civilian look a-likes.

I say this to be helpful not an asshat.

As far as limits on "military weapon ownership by the general public", most of it "is" limited or banned.

Does anyone think they can buy hand grenades or M-16's?

Are rocket propelled munitions found at the sporting goods stores?

When we talk about banning assault weapon look a likes, it is silly-talk made for people who who just don't understand the way in which most guns work.

There is only one area that has any credibility and that is magazine capacity.

But even this one feature, of say limiting the capacity to 10 rounds (as I think Cal. has done)...... you would have to ask yourself: In what percentage of murders does it take more than 10 shots or, that the offender could not have changed magazines anyway?

These cases are out there but they are very rare.....so very rare that they make national news for days when they happen.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Danno

[james&olya 1,121]

were that in bold true, hunters would use assault rifles for hunting. which brings us to your first sentence - that is true.

"military style" firearms are designed to be like a timex watch - take a licking and keep on ticking. rough use, not the most careful of handling by it's user, it can take far more abuse than the average hunting rifle. the trade off is - they are quite often not as accurate as hunting rifles. i personally can hit pie plates well past 300 meters with my hunting rifles - but won't even bother trying that with a military grade rifle.

now ask yourself this - which is really more dangerous: your average hunting rifle, or a military grade rifle?

i'd choose the first one.

You avoid the real question, as usual! Would you draw a line anywhere on what individual members of the public are allowed to own? Would you allow RPG's? Mortars? Land mines? These are all 'arms' used by militaries and militias. And if you allow all these we can step up the firepower of the weapons in question. My point, which you and many others keep ducking, is the obvious necessity that there be restrictions at some level, the only question is where the line for these restrictions should be! Be honest in this discussion and address this issue! Why are you and so many others afraid to do so? I did get Slim to answer on this and he doesn't believe ANY restrictions should be allowed, presumably up to and including Nukes! Crazy, yes! But honest and coherent at least.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

You avoid the real question, as usual! Would you draw a line anywhere on what individual members of the public are allowed to own? Would you allow RPG's? Mortars? Land mines? These are all 'arms' used by militaries and militias. And if you allow all these we can step up the firepower of the weapons in question. My point, which you and many others keep ducking, is the obvious necessity that there be restrictions at some level, the only question is where the line for these restrictions should be! Be honest in this discussion and address this issue! Why are you and so many others afraid to do so? I did get Slim to answer on this and he doesn't believe ANY restrictions should be allowed, presumably up to and including Nukes! Crazy, yes! But honest and coherent at least.

not ducking the above - i've answered that before (probably before your join date). while some on here believe yes, you should be able to own those - my thoughts are individuals shouldn't own crew served firearms (crew served = requires more than one person to operate). rpg's, land mines - i'm not seeing a point to owning those either.

[^_^ 5,021]

not ducking the above - i've answered that before (probably before your join date). while some on here believe yes, you should be able to own those - my thoughts are individuals shouldn't own crew served firearms (crew served = requires more than one person to operate). rpg's, land mines - i'm not seeing a point to owning those either.

When the ChiComs invade, you're gonna wanna mine your backyard.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

When the ChiComs invade, you're gonna wanna mine your backyard.

why? i want them to come through the backyard, that's got the best field of fire - plus they'd be running uphill.

[james&olya 1,121]

why? i want them to come through the backyard, that's got the best field of fire - plus they'd be running uphill.

So does slash get to have his land-mines since he does see a 'point' in having them? Or does society through majority rule get to impose a restriction on him? And if we can restrict land-mines why not certain categories of guns? Either restrictions can or cannot be imposed on this 'right to bear arms'! Not a 'technicality' at all but rather a crucial element in this discussion that is so frequently skipped over!!

[Danno 1,228]

So does slash get to have his land-mines since he does see a 'point' in having them? Or does society through majority rule get to impose a restriction on him? And if we can restrict land-mines why not certain categories of guns? Either restrictions can or cannot be imposed on this 'right to bear arms'! Not a 'technicality' at all but rather a crucial element in this discussion that is so frequently skipped over!!

First of all this is a republic, so majority rule is not the factor here.

I believe guns just like every other God given right can have bounds and be limited by time, Place and Manner.

It also should be regulated by "need".

If we had a real "need" to further regulate (ban).... they would be banned.

Imagine the President was shot (God forbid) and within the space of a few years, 4 or 5 high profile people were Shot and killed by sanely armed militia type people with a certain type of weapon.

I am betting that would translate into gun control laws poppin up.

Yes it would take fewer people than it does to fill a both at Denny's to effect the rights of millions of gun owners.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

So does slash get to have his land-mines since he does see a 'point' in having them? Or does society through majority rule get to impose a restriction on him? And if we can restrict land-mines why not certain categories of guns? Either restrictions can or cannot be imposed on this 'right to bear arms'! Not a 'technicality' at all but rather a crucial element in this discussion that is so frequently skipped over!!

oh i'd like to see aj with land mines. it would be a youtube moment.

[james&olya 1,121]

First of all this is a republic, so majority rule is not the factor here.

I believe guns just like every other God given right can have bounds and be limited by time, Place and Manner.

It also should be regulated by "need".

If we had a real "need" to further regulate (ban).... they would be banned.

Our representatives are placed into office through 'majority rules'.

Who gets to determine this 'need'? Individual states and municipalities? The federal government? Red state voters? White males?