Gun Control Compromise

[Daryl Hunt]

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

More guns don't up to a point. But when they near the saturation level some real problems do raise it's ugly head. When the class of the revolver was released into the west where it was brought back from the Civil War and just everyone had to have one, towns in the west had severe problems. Until 1871, there was zero gun regulations in the western states. Before the saturation, none were needed. But as the guns reached a certain level it got very dangerous for innocents to even walk down the streets or go to the local News Gathering Spots (the saloons). The Western Gun Regulations were invented. The East already had them. Gun Regulations aren't anything new. Please hang your sword on the peg on entering the establishment goes back much further. No Spears at the Bar. Get drunk and start brandishing your sword and the Bartender will place a mini ball between your eyes.

I have been to countries where they were at the saturation level. Then they try and pass laws to take all the weapons. It's too late for that. The only way that they can take those weapons is to kill the person holding them. Most countries like that, before and after, are real cesspools. You would think that Mexico would be on that list. It's not. Traditionally, Mexicans don't own guns or any serious weapons of any kind. This is why so many decades could go past before a Revolution against a real Despot would happen. The story of the Latin Anger is just a wives tail. Most Mexicans outside of the major cities are very calm and demure except during a national holiday or a religious holiday then lookout, katie. If you could convince them that a revolution was needed, you had to provide them with the weapons and supplies. Otherwise, they would just endure. This also why the Cartels get so powerful so fast.

Can you have too few guns? Probably. Just like you can have too many. Somewhere there is a happy medium and I believe we are there right now.

More guns don't up to a point. But when they near the saturation level some real problems do raise it's ugly head.


Except they haven't. Not in this country. Over the last 26 years as more people, not less, own and actually carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%...how is that a problem? Our gun crime rate went down 75%......that isn't a problem, that is a plus......and our violent crime rate went down 72%.......

So your point is not a valid point since there are more guns in this country and our crime rates are going down....

And you are wrong on the "western gun regulations as well." You made that up from your imagination...

The New York Times Botches America’s History With The Gun

Second, the idea that “Gun control laws were ubiquitous” in the 19th century is the work of politically motivated historians who cobble together every minor local restriction they can find in an attempt to create the impression that gun control was the norm. If this were true, Kristof wouldn’t need to jump to 1879 to offer his first specific case.

Visitors to Wichita, Kan., had to check their revolvers at police headquarters. As for Dodge City, a symbol of the Wild West, a photo shows a sign on main street in 1879 warning: “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited.”


This talking point has been trotted out for years because it’s the closest thing anyone can find to resemble gun control in the Old West — a picture. But we don’t even know how rigidly the law was enforced, for how long, or if ever. We certainly don’t know that the guns were dropped off at “police headquarters.”

Dodge City-type ordinances—and those of some other towns—typically applied to the areas north of the “deadline,” which was the railroad tracks and a kind of red-light district. By 1879, Dodge City had nearly 20 businesses licensed to sell liquor and many whorehouses teeming with intoxicated young men. It was reasonable that these businesses wouldn’t want armed men with revolvers packed into their establishments.

However, the men voluntarily abandoned their weapons in exchange for entertainment and drink—just as they do today when entering establishments that prohibit the carrying of firearms. Those weapons were handed back to them when they were done. Not in their wildest imaginations would they have entertained the notion of asking the government for permission—getting a license or undergoing a background check—to own a firearm.

In the rest of the city, as with almost every city in the West, guns were allowed, and people walked around with them freely and openly. They bought them freely and openly. Even children could buy them. A man could buy a Colt or Remington or Winchester, and he could buy as many as he liked without anyone taking notice.


The fact is that in the 19th century there were no statewide or territory-wide gun control laws for citizens, and certainly no federal laws.

Nor was there a single case challenging the idea of the individual right of gun ownership. Guns were romanticized in the literature and art, and the era’s greatest engineers designed and sold them. All the while, American leaders continued to praise the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny.

Those who praised this right, incidentally, include numerous post-Civil War civil rights activists, who offered particularly powerful arguments for the importance of the Second Amendment. Most gun-control regulations that did exist, after all, were used for subjugating blacks and Indians.

Since about 1993, the percentage of gun owners have stayed bout the same. Yes, there have been more guns bought by far but it's the same people that keep buying more and more guns. You keep trying to use faulty information to make a point by leaving out important data. The fact remains, more guns have had zero affect one way or another. Party because it's the same people just buying more guns. So that brings me to my real message to you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

one question i keep asking no one can answer really is - which of the proposed bans or laws would have changed or stopped any of the mass shootings in the last decade?

I can only speak for Colorado. In 2013 Laws were passed that limited accessories to the AR. It didn't ban the AR or even disrupt the sales. Nor did any of these laws require any action up front from the authorities since all of them were Grandfathered in. We had just went through 3 mass shootings in a Theater and 2 Schools. What they all had in common was mags of at least 30 rounds and a bunch of them. One had a 100 round mag. The new law limited the mags to 15. I would have done it at 20 but that's just a judgement call. If you already had anything over 15 rounds you kept them but you couldn't sell them or transfer them. It takes about 10 years for a Grandfathered Gun Control like that to have a lasting affect. But it will work.

Teachers were given permission to be armed as school if the Principal authorizes it. The State may have authorized it but the Teachers Organizations turned it down flat. Instead, they installed metal security doors, a couple or three armed security guards and a method to herd the students into a central area where the shooter has to go through numerous metal security doors and corridors.

Since then, right around here, we have had 3 serious school lockdowns happen. 2 were false alarms. But one wasn't. One 17 year old was headed towards a school front gate. He was wearing a rain coat on a sunny warm dry day. One of the neighbors saw him and called it in. Before he reached the front gate, the had surround him and had him on the pavement in restraints. What they found on him was an AR-15 and 3 spare 30 round Mags that his Father owned. The Students were in lockdown for the next 2 hours and perfectly safe. Since the kid was 17, he was a minor and probably one sick puppy. His name was never released and it was only reported once on a page 6 type reporting. The kid was going for the new record but the dude in Las Vegas may have set the bar to high for any regular nutcase to ever break. I know, since he never got the chance to go in and slaughter away you can't count those kids and teachers as lives saved. At least that has been the faulty argument anyway.

Since it's been now 5 plus years of the new laws, the AR has lost it's cult status. 5 years ago, the guns shops couldn't keep them on the shelves they were selling them so fast. Bit the last 5 years, the AR market saturated and it lost it's cult status. Today, there are more ARs on the shelves in a Gun Shop than anything else but the reason for that is, they are having trouble selling them. I can buy a brand new Bushmaster at a gun shop for 399. Why is it so cheap? They just aren't selling anymore. And when dealing with other guns like handguns, the sales have slowed way down as well. I can go into any Gun Shop with 400 bucks burning a hole in my pocket and in 15 minutes be walking out with a brand new name brand handgun. That market saturated as well. And remember, this is the redest area in the state. The only reason Colorado is not listed as a blue state instead of a purple state isn this 1/3 of the state that is solid red.

How many lives have been saved? I know of one school that did have many lives saved. And there is no telling how many other lives were same beyond that. But it's been done by common sense gun regs and common sense social training and awareness.

Magazines don't matter in a mass shooting.......the anti gunners simply used the deaths as an excuse to ban those magazines because they have an irrational fear of guns.....

Oh, really. The Theater shooter had a 100 round mag. He killed and maimed most of the people with that in a matter of seconds. He tried to finish off with a handgun and a shotgun but those just didn't kill quite quick enough. He was apprehended in the parking lot unjamming and reloading his AR getting ready to go back inside. Here is my opinion of you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

one question i keep asking no one can answer really is - which of the proposed bans or laws would have changed or stopped any of the mass shootings in the last decade?

Exactly.
Not a single one of the existing or proposed law would ever have prevented a single one of the known incidents.
And actually would likely increase them, not only because the more coercive laws you make the government that enforces them becomes more corrupt, but individuals resent them and the government that imposes them even more.

And yet we have conclusive proof that it does. You just won't listen. I guess it's your programming.

Keep going like this and you get to be in the same category as 2boy and he's pretty much a

 

[2aguy]

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

one question i keep asking no one can answer really is - which of the proposed bans or laws would have changed or stopped any of the mass shootings in the last decade?

I can only speak for Colorado. In 2013 Laws were passed that limited accessories to the AR. It didn't ban the AR or even disrupt the sales. Nor did any of these laws require any action up front from the authorities since all of them were Grandfathered in. We had just went through 3 mass shootings in a Theater and 2 Schools. What they all had in common was mags of at least 30 rounds and a bunch of them. One had a 100 round mag. The new law limited the mags to 15. I would have done it at 20 but that's just a judgement call. If you already had anything over 15 rounds you kept them but you couldn't sell them or transfer them. It takes about 10 years for a Grandfathered Gun Control like that to have a lasting affect. But it will work.

Teachers were given permission to be armed as school if the Principal authorizes it. The State may have authorized it but the Teachers Organizations turned it down flat. Instead, they installed metal security doors, a couple or three armed security guards and a method to herd the students into a central area where the shooter has to go through numerous metal security doors and corridors.

Since then, right around here, we have had 3 serious school lockdowns happen. 2 were false alarms. But one wasn't. One 17 year old was headed towards a school front gate. He was wearing a rain coat on a sunny warm dry day. One of the neighbors saw him and called it in. Before he reached the front gate, the had surround him and had him on the pavement in restraints. What they found on him was an AR-15 and 3 spare 30 round Mags that his Father owned. The Students were in lockdown for the next 2 hours and perfectly safe. Since the kid was 17, he was a minor and probably one sick puppy. His name was never released and it was only reported once on a page 6 type reporting. The kid was going for the new record but the dude in Las Vegas may have set the bar to high for any regular nutcase to ever break. I know, since he never got the chance to go in and slaughter away you can't count those kids and teachers as lives saved. At least that has been the faulty argument anyway.

Since it's been now 5 plus years of the new laws, the AR has lost it's cult status. 5 years ago, the guns shops couldn't keep them on the shelves they were selling them so fast. Bit the last 5 years, the AR market saturated and it lost it's cult status. Today, there are more ARs on the shelves in a Gun Shop than anything else but the reason for that is, they are having trouble selling them. I can buy a brand new Bushmaster at a gun shop for 399. Why is it so cheap? They just aren't selling anymore. And when dealing with other guns like handguns, the sales have slowed way down as well. I can go into any Gun Shop with 400 bucks burning a hole in my pocket and in 15 minutes be walking out with a brand new name brand handgun. That market saturated as well. And remember, this is the redest area in the state. The only reason Colorado is not listed as a blue state instead of a purple state isn this 1/3 of the state that is solid red.

How many lives have been saved? I know of one school that did have many lives saved. And there is no telling how many other lives were same beyond that. But it's been done by common sense gun regs and common sense social training and awareness.

Magazines don't matter in a mass shooting.......the anti gunners simply used the deaths as an excuse to ban those magazines because they have an irrational fear of guns.....

Oh, really. The Theater shooter had a 100 round mag. He killed and maimed most of the people with that in a matter of seconds. He tried to finish off with a handgun and a shotgun but those just didn't kill quite quick enough. He was apprehended in the parking lot unjamming and reloading his AR getting ready to go back inside. Here is my opinion of you.

Moron..... he attacked a room filled with unarmed people, throwing smoke grenades first.....the magazine capacity had no bearing on how many people he killed he killed 12 people with that rifle......the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 with 2 pistols......you don't know what you are talking about....that 100 round magazine saved lives since it jammed almost immediately.

You don't know what you are talking about ....... you have thoughts that pop into your brain and you spew them out as if they are relevant or deep....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

one question i keep asking no one can answer really is - which of the proposed bans or laws would have changed or stopped any of the mass shootings in the last decade?

I can only speak for Colorado. In 2013 Laws were passed that limited accessories to the AR. It didn't ban the AR or even disrupt the sales. Nor did any of these laws require any action up front from the authorities since all of them were Grandfathered in. We had just went through 3 mass shootings in a Theater and 2 Schools. What they all had in common was mags of at least 30 rounds and a bunch of them. One had a 100 round mag. The new law limited the mags to 15. I would have done it at 20 but that's just a judgement call. If you already had anything over 15 rounds you kept them but you couldn't sell them or transfer them. It takes about 10 years for a Grandfathered Gun Control like that to have a lasting affect. But it will work.

Teachers were given permission to be armed as school if the Principal authorizes it. The State may have authorized it but the Teachers Organizations turned it down flat. Instead, they installed metal security doors, a couple or three armed security guards and a method to herd the students into a central area where the shooter has to go through numerous metal security doors and corridors.

Since then, right around here, we have had 3 serious school lockdowns happen. 2 were false alarms. But one wasn't. One 17 year old was headed towards a school front gate. He was wearing a rain coat on a sunny warm dry day. One of the neighbors saw him and called it in. Before he reached the front gate, the had surround him and had him on the pavement in restraints. What they found on him was an AR-15 and 3 spare 30 round Mags that his Father owned. The Students were in lockdown for the next 2 hours and perfectly safe. Since the kid was 17, he was a minor and probably one sick puppy. His name was never released and it was only reported once on a page 6 type reporting. The kid was going for the new record but the dude in Las Vegas may have set the bar to high for any regular nutcase to ever break. I know, since he never got the chance to go in and slaughter away you can't count those kids and teachers as lives saved. At least that has been the faulty argument anyway.

Since it's been now 5 plus years of the new laws, the AR has lost it's cult status. 5 years ago, the guns shops couldn't keep them on the shelves they were selling them so fast. Bit the last 5 years, the AR market saturated and it lost it's cult status. Today, there are more ARs on the shelves in a Gun Shop than anything else but the reason for that is, they are having trouble selling them. I can buy a brand new Bushmaster at a gun shop for 399. Why is it so cheap? They just aren't selling anymore. And when dealing with other guns like handguns, the sales have slowed way down as well. I can go into any Gun Shop with 400 bucks burning a hole in my pocket and in 15 minutes be walking out with a brand new name brand handgun. That market saturated as well. And remember, this is the redest area in the state. The only reason Colorado is not listed as a blue state instead of a purple state isn this 1/3 of the state that is solid red.

How many lives have been saved? I know of one school that did have many lives saved. And there is no telling how many other lives were same beyond that. But it's been done by common sense gun regs and common sense social training and awareness.

Magazines don't matter in a mass shooting.......the anti gunners simply used the deaths as an excuse to ban those magazines because they have an irrational fear of guns.....

Oh, really. The Theater shooter had a 100 round mag. He killed and maimed most of the people with that in a matter of seconds. He tried to finish off with a handgun and a shotgun but those just didn't kill quite quick enough. He was apprehended in the parking lot unjamming and reloading his AR getting ready to go back inside. Here is my opinion of you.

Moron..... he attacked a room filled with unarmed people, throwing smoke grenades first.....the magazine capacity had no bearing on how many people he killed he killed 12 people with that rifle......the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 with 2 pistols......you don't know what you are talking about....that 100 round magazine saved lives since it jammed almost immediately.

You don't know what you are talking about ....... you have thoughts that pop into your brain and you spew them out as if they are relevant or deep....

He had less than 90 seconds before he was apprehended. Until the LV shooter, this was the record holder. And almost immediately means just over 50 rounds in just a few seconds. And most of the dead and injured were from that AR. Yes, it could have been worse if he had 4 30 rounds mags with him like that shooter that was stopped cold around here. You are still a

 

[Foxfyre]

I can see that you are dead set in your ideas and nothing including reality will ever change them. Fine, that's your right.

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that "arms" means all weapons without exclusion, whatever they may be, and that "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions or regulation.

You act like the 2A is set in stone. It can be amended. What I cannot tolerate is circumventing the amendment process. That is tyranny.

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.

But the first 2/3rds of it still has all its meaning if you look at it through the eyes of the Founding Fathers who wrote, signed, and ratified it. The Founding Fathers feared a standing army that could be used for good or evil. It certainly would have ability to overthrow a lawfully established government structure should it choose to do so.

As it turned out, their fears were unfounded when a standing Army of freedom loving, patriotic, flag waving, and ethical Americans was created. And, because the military respects the Commander in Chief who is civilian, we no longer fear a military coup in this country. (Whether lack of such fear is wise, might be considered when we see a rogue FBI leadership attempting such a coup these past two plus years.)

But the Founders didn't live to see that. They did see the central government and every state as possibly having need to call all the U.S. citizens to arms from time to time. An unarmed citizenry would not be of much use in such emergencies, but a well armed citizenry would make a formidable Army when called to service to defend their homeland or any part of it. So that was their rationale to ensure that no misguided government leaders would have constitutional authority to disarm or otherwise restrict the ability of the citizens to be armed.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I can see that you are dead set in your ideas and nothing including reality will ever change them. Fine, that's your right.

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that "arms" means all weapons without exclusion, whatever they may be, and that "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions or regulation.

You act like the 2A is set in stone. It can be amended. What I cannot tolerate is circumventing the amendment process. That is tyranny.

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.

But the first 2/3rds of it still has all its meaning if you look at it through the eyes of the Founding Fathers who wrote, signed, and ratified it. The Founding Fathers feared a standing army that could be used for good or evil. It certainly would have ability to overthrow a lawfully established government structure should it choose to do so.

As it turned out, their fears were unfounded when a standing Army of freedom loving, patriotic, flag waving, and ethical Americans was created. And, because the military respects the Commander in Chief who is civilian, we no longer fear a military coup in this country. (Whether lack of such fear is wise, might be considered when we see a rogue FBI leadership attempting such a coup these past two plus years.)

But the Founders didn't live to see that. They did see the central government and every state as possibly having need to call all the U.S. citizens to arms from time to time. An unarmed citizenry would not be of much use in such emergencies, but a well armed citizenry would make a formidable Army when called to service to defend their homeland or any part of it. So that was their rationale to ensure that no misguided government leaders would have constitutional authority to disarm or otherwise restrict the ability of the citizens to be armed.

Oh, I agree. But since then, the first two parts of the 2nd A have become worthless. They need to be completely taken out and the last 4 words need to be expanded and clarified. It's been a very long time coming but our chicken livered government won't grow a pair and present that.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can see that you are dead set in your ideas and nothing including reality will ever change them. Fine, that's your right.

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that "arms" means all weapons without exclusion, whatever they may be, and that "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions or regulation.

You act like the 2A is set in stone. It can be amended. What I cannot tolerate is circumventing the amendment process. That is tyranny.

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.

But the first 2/3rds of it still has all its meaning if you look at it through the eyes of the Founding Fathers who wrote, signed, and ratified it. The Founding Fathers feared a standing army that could be used for good or evil. It certainly would have ability to overthrow a lawfully established government structure should it choose to do so.

As it turned out, their fears were unfounded when a standing Army of freedom loving, patriotic, flag waving, and ethical Americans was created. And, because the military respects the Commander in Chief who is civilian, we no longer fear a military coup in this country. (Whether lack of such fear is wise, might be considered when we see a rogue FBI leadership attempting such a coup these past two plus years.)

But the Founders didn't live to see that. They did see the central government and every state as possibly having need to call all the U.S. citizens to arms from time to time. An unarmed citizenry would not be of much use in such emergencies, but a well armed citizenry would make a formidable Army when called to service to defend their homeland or any part of it. So that was their rationale to ensure that no misguided government leaders would have constitutional authority to disarm or otherwise restrict the ability of the citizens to be armed.

Oh, I agree. But since then, the first two parts of the 2nd A have become worthless. They need to be completely taken out and the last 4 words need to be expanded and clarified. It's been a very long time coming but our chicken livered government won't grow a pair and present that.

I wouldn't have a problem with a Constitutional amendment that would leave less wiggle room in interpretation. But as long as we have a majority of SCOTUS justices who interpret law according to the INTENT of the Constitution there is no problem. It is only those who say it says something other than what the Founders intended who are a problem.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I can see that you are dead set in your ideas and nothing including reality will ever change them. Fine, that's your right.

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that "arms" means all weapons without exclusion, whatever they may be, and that "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions or regulation.

You act like the 2A is set in stone. It can be amended. What I cannot tolerate is circumventing the amendment process. That is tyranny.

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.

But the first 2/3rds of it still has all its meaning if you look at it through the eyes of the Founding Fathers who wrote, signed, and ratified it. The Founding Fathers feared a standing army that could be used for good or evil. It certainly would have ability to overthrow a lawfully established government structure should it choose to do so.

As it turned out, their fears were unfounded when a standing Army of freedom loving, patriotic, flag waving, and ethical Americans was created. And, because the military respects the Commander in Chief who is civilian, we no longer fear a military coup in this country. (Whether lack of such fear is wise, might be considered when we see a rogue FBI leadership attempting such a coup these past two plus years.)

But the Founders didn't live to see that. They did see the central government and every state as possibly having need to call all the U.S. citizens to arms from time to time. An unarmed citizenry would not be of much use in such emergencies, but a well armed citizenry would make a formidable Army when called to service to defend their homeland or any part of it. So that was their rationale to ensure that no misguided government leaders would have constitutional authority to disarm or otherwise restrict the ability of the citizens to be armed.

Oh, I agree. But since then, the first two parts of the 2nd A have become worthless. They need to be completely taken out and the last 4 words need to be expanded and clarified. It's been a very long time coming but our chicken livered government won't grow a pair and present that.

I wouldn't have a problem with a Constitutional amendment that would leave less wiggle room in interpretation. But as long as we have a majority of SCOTUS justices who interpret law according to the INTENT of the Constitution there is no problem. It is only those who say it says something other than what the Founders intended who are a problem.

Therein lies the problem. We all have our own ideas to the original intentions of the FFs. Just those 4 simple words are just too vague.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I can see that you are dead set in your ideas and nothing including reality will ever change them. Fine, that's your right.

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that "arms" means all weapons without exclusion, whatever they may be, and that "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions or regulation.

You act like the 2A is set in stone. It can be amended. What I cannot tolerate is circumventing the amendment process. That is tyranny.

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.

But the first 2/3rds of it still has all its meaning if you look at it through the eyes of the Founding Fathers who wrote, signed, and ratified it. The Founding Fathers feared a standing army that could be used for good or evil. It certainly would have ability to overthrow a lawfully established government structure should it choose to do so.

As it turned out, their fears were unfounded when a standing Army of freedom loving, patriotic, flag waving, and ethical Americans was created. And, because the military respects the Commander in Chief who is civilian, we no longer fear a military coup in this country. (Whether lack of such fear is wise, might be considered when we see a rogue FBI leadership attempting such a coup these past two plus years.)

But the Founders didn't live to see that. They did see the central government and every state as possibly having need to call all the U.S. citizens to arms from time to time. An unarmed citizenry would not be of much use in such emergencies, but a well armed citizenry would make a formidable Army when called to service to defend their homeland or any part of it. So that was their rationale to ensure that no misguided government leaders would have constitutional authority to disarm or otherwise restrict the ability of the citizens to be armed.

It’s interesting to consider the fact that the notion of ‘insurrectionist theory’ is anathema to conservative dogma:

‘I read Justice Scalia’s opinion with both great interest and trepidation to see whether he embraced insurrectionist theory, that is, the argument that the Founders adopted the Second Amendment as a check against governmental tyranny. What’s more repugnant to constitutional democracy and the rule of law – not to mention traditional conservatism – than the idea that the people should be armed to potentially go to war with their own government? Nonetheless, this theory has animated much of the individual right literature. Its popularity has undoubtedly disturbed the sleep of giants on both sides of the Atlantic. Surely, insurrectionism has had both James Madison and Edmund Burke spinning in their graves.

Clearly, Justice Scalia tried to be careful not to expressly embrace insurrectionist theory. Yet he alludes to it gingerly – a sort of toe in the water. He writes that “when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.” Call me foolish, but I was hoping that the conservative Court would expressly repudiate insurrectionist theory. Somewhere, Robespierre is smiling.’

Heller Discussion Board: A Toe in the Water - SCOTUSblog

Repugnant to a Constitutional democracy, indeed.

Needless to say, the canard that the Second Amendment authorizes armed citizens to ‘overthrow’ a government they subjectively and incorrectly perceive to have become ‘tyrannical’ is devoid of legal and Constitutional merit:

‘Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, called the idea that a right to fight against government tyranny is enshrined in the Bill of Rights the "insurrectionist theory" of the Second Amendment. (So named because an insurrectionist is someone who takes part in an armed rebellion.)

"That insurrectionist theory used to be a fringe theory of the Second Amendment but it’s become much more mainstream," said Winkler, the author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America.

Winkler attributed the surge in the theory's popularity to the increasingly extreme language used by the National Rifle Association and "a desire to frame the Second Amendment in a way that will protect military-style assault rifles."

If the insurrectionist theory is accepted, then efforts to ban semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 would be unconstitutional because those weapons would be exactly what Americans would "need to fight back against the government," Winkler said.

While Winkler agrees the Second Amendment "has the happy impact of deterring tyranny because the citizenry is armed," he does not believe the Founding Fathers intended to "give the people the right to rise up against the government."

"The Framers understood the right to bear arms as an individual right, but it wasn’t a right to stage a revolution," Winkler said. "The Constitution doesn’t provide the seeds for its own destruction."’

For many Americans, the Second Amendment is a defense against their own government

Exactly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1. The Law passed in Colorado limiting detachable Mags to 15, not 10 and it stood up in Federal Court. I would have rather seen it limited to 20 but that's just me. You get your information because there were NO 15 round mags made at the time for the AR, only 10 rounds. And that was what the Gun Shops had to put on their ARs to sell them until they got the 15 rounders made. Legislators are not Rocket Scientists. Even if they were, Einstein wore slip on shoes because he didn't tie his shoes when they had laces. The laces trailed behind him.

As for banning the AR-15, the days of the generic banning of the generic description went by the way. It did draw in way too many other guns like the little Model 60 Marlin. Eventually, the courts corrected that. Now, any weapon that is to be banned or limited must be named by specific model number. The various local Governments CAN ban or limit the "AR-15 and it's various clones" as long as they are that specific in their law.

You are back to try and keep the scare and fear factor going. More and more people aren't buying into that anymore. We are going for common sense gun regs that do not take away the sport shooting experience nor jeopardizes the defense of ones home.

You are throwing a temper tantrum of "You can't tell me what to do". Actually, yes they can and they do.

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy and an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

And it is not a fact that ‘more guns’ contribute to ‘less crime.’

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

 

[Rigby5]

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

More guns don't up to a point. But when they near the saturation level some real problems do raise it's ugly head. When the class of the revolver was released into the west where it was brought back from the Civil War and just everyone had to have one, towns in the west had severe problems. Until 1871, there was zero gun regulations in the western states. Before the saturation, none were needed. But as the guns reached a certain level it got very dangerous for innocents to even walk down the streets or go to the local News Gathering Spots (the saloons). The Western Gun Regulations were invented. The East already had them. Gun Regulations aren't anything new. Please hang your sword on the peg on entering the establishment goes back much further. No Spears at the Bar. Get drunk and start brandishing your sword and the Bartender will place a mini ball between your eyes.

I have been to countries where they were at the saturation level. Then they try and pass laws to take all the weapons. It's too late for that. The only way that they can take those weapons is to kill the person holding them. Most countries like that, before and after, are real cesspools. You would think that Mexico would be on that list. It's not. Traditionally, Mexicans don't own guns or any serious weapons of any kind. This is why so many decades could go past before a Revolution against a real Despot would happen. The story of the Latin Anger is just a wives tail. Most Mexicans outside of the major cities are very calm and demure except during a national holiday or a religious holiday then lookout, katie. If you could convince them that a revolution was needed, you had to provide them with the weapons and supplies. Otherwise, they would just endure. This also why the Cartels get so powerful so fast.

Can you have too few guns? Probably. Just like you can have too many. Somewhere there is a happy medium and I believe we are there right now.

No, you are wrong about the old west.
They towns of the old west never had any sort of gun control, never needed it, and revolvers predated the Civil war considerably.
What the old west had was a drinking and gambling problem when there were cattle drives.
And it was only those going to saloons who had to surrender weapons.
Not the residents or people going anywhere else.
And NO, the east did not already have them.
There was no significant successful gun control laws anywhere, until the Sullivan Act of 1911, in NYC.
Any previous attempt had been struck down.
So then YES, gun control is entirely new, disreputable, immoral, and totally outside of any possible federal jurisdiction.
Laws about drinking and gambling while armed are fine, but that is NOT at all gun control.

And again, the only people who are danger armed are criminal and dictators, who are always saturated with guns already.
So anyone proposing gun control likely is a criminal or dictator who is not going to be effected, and only wants an illegal advantage.

I think cartels get so powerful so fast because of US money and corrupt US war on drugs.
Ridiculous combination.

And I think there can never be too many guns.
Less than 1 per person is not enough, and 2 per person does no harm.
No one has to use them unless there is a reason.
And the only way we can prevent there from being a reason to use guns, is by having guns.
No crime or dictatorship has ever been stopped by taking guns away.
Either you trust the general population and want them armed, or you are a criminal or dictator, which are the causes why the general population should be armed.
That is what a democratic republic is about, trusting the general population.
There can be no one better to be trusted with arms.
Certainly not criminals or the government.
If you want to reduce guns in the hands of the general population, you would first have to totally disarm the criminals and government, and that is never going to happen.

 

[Rigby5]

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy and an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

And it is not a fact that ‘more guns’ contribute to ‘less crime.’

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

You make no argument?
What of of the 6 paragraphs is supposed to be a "false comparison fallacy"?

Nor did I ever even mention concealed carry permits.
Obviously open carry would be more effective, but it is homes or businesses that usually are the main targets of crime.

What I was talking about was universal firearms, like Switzerland has, which clearly has been not only proven to reduce crime, but invasion as well.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy and an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

And it is not a fact that ‘more guns’ contribute to ‘less crime.’

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

You make no argument?
What of of the 6 paragraphs is supposed to be a "false comparison fallacy"?

Nor did I ever even mention concealed carry permits.
Obviously open carry would be more effective, but it is homes or businesses that usually are the main targets of crime.

What I was talking about was universal firearms, like Switzerland has, which clearly has been not only proven to reduce crime, but invasion as well.

The Swiss has one of the tightest gun controls on the face of the earth. ALL guns must be registered. ALL people that possess those guns must be licensed. Switzerland has had a severe decrease in people leaving the service and taking their service weapons with them. Plus, their private gun sales are very, very restrictive.

 

[Rigby5]

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy and an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

And it is not a fact that ‘more guns’ contribute to ‘less crime.’

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

You make no argument?
What of of the 6 paragraphs is supposed to be a "false comparison fallacy"?

Nor did I ever even mention concealed carry permits.
Obviously open carry would be more effective, but it is homes or businesses that usually are the main targets of crime.

What I was talking about was universal firearms, like Switzerland has, which clearly has been not only proven to reduce crime, but invasion as well.

The Swiss has one of the tightest gun controls on the face of the earth. ALL guns must be registered. ALL people that possess those guns must be licensed. Switzerland has had a severe decrease in people leaving the service and taking their service weapons with them. Plus, their private gun sales are very, very restrictive.

You are totally wrong.
Half my relatives are Austrian/Swiss, and there are no federal gun control laws at all there.
They are only local, by canton, and they are extremely lax.
All guns have to be registered when sold, but you do not register individual guns you own, but you get a license for yourself, and can then have all the guns you want, as a collector, sporting club member, etc.
And that included full auto machine guns.
And no, when people leave the service, they are almost required to take their service weapon with them.
They are also given all the free practice ammunition they want.
The only thing even remotely rigid in Switzerland is getting a concealed carry permit.
But even that is easier in Switzerland than in NYC.
Training and ownership is essentially mandatory and universal.
What you read about Switzerland in the media is total hogwash.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that "arms" means all weapons without exclusion, whatever they may be, and that "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions or regulation.

You act like the 2A is set in stone. It can be amended. What I cannot tolerate is circumventing the amendment process. That is tyranny.

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.

But the first 2/3rds of it still has all its meaning if you look at it through the eyes of the Founding Fathers who wrote, signed, and ratified it. The Founding Fathers feared a standing army that could be used for good or evil. It certainly would have ability to overthrow a lawfully established government structure should it choose to do so.

As it turned out, their fears were unfounded when a standing Army of freedom loving, patriotic, flag waving, and ethical Americans was created. And, because the military respects the Commander in Chief who is civilian, we no longer fear a military coup in this country. (Whether lack of such fear is wise, might be considered when we see a rogue FBI leadership attempting such a coup these past two plus years.)

But the Founders didn't live to see that. They did see the central government and every state as possibly having need to call all the U.S. citizens to arms from time to time. An unarmed citizenry would not be of much use in such emergencies, but a well armed citizenry would make a formidable Army when called to service to defend their homeland or any part of it. So that was their rationale to ensure that no misguided government leaders would have constitutional authority to disarm or otherwise restrict the ability of the citizens to be armed.

Oh, I agree. But since then, the first two parts of the 2nd A have become worthless. They need to be completely taken out and the last 4 words need to be expanded and clarified. It's been a very long time coming but our chicken livered government won't grow a pair and present that.

I wouldn't have a problem with a Constitutional amendment that would leave less wiggle room in interpretation. But as long as we have a majority of SCOTUS justices who interpret law according to the INTENT of the Constitution there is no problem. It is only those who say it says something other than what the Founders intended who are a problem.

Therein lies the problem. We all have our own ideas to the original intentions of the FFs. Just those 4 simple words are just too vague.

Not vague at all for Constitutional scholars of which all Supreme Court Justices should be. A Constitutional scholar will be well grounded in the founding documents that inform us of what the Founders intended with each clause in the Constitution. And Constitutional scholars--that is REAL ones and not pretend ones--all agree that it was never given to courts at ANY level to make law, change law, or interpret law in any manner. Even when they rule that a law is unconstitutional, that was never intended to invalidate the law but was meant to inform those constitutionally authorized to make law where they were in error and fix it.

All good judges will be Constitutional scholars at least to the point that they know what the letter and intent of the law is so that they can determine whether we are within the law or are breaking it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can see that you are dead set in your ideas and nothing including reality will ever change them. Fine, that's your right.

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that "arms" means all weapons without exclusion, whatever they may be, and that "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions or regulation.

You act like the 2A is set in stone. It can be amended. What I cannot tolerate is circumventing the amendment process. That is tyranny.

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.

But the first 2/3rds of it still has all its meaning if you look at it through the eyes of the Founding Fathers who wrote, signed, and ratified it. The Founding Fathers feared a standing army that could be used for good or evil. It certainly would have ability to overthrow a lawfully established government structure should it choose to do so.

As it turned out, their fears were unfounded when a standing Army of freedom loving, patriotic, flag waving, and ethical Americans was created. And, because the military respects the Commander in Chief who is civilian, we no longer fear a military coup in this country. (Whether lack of such fear is wise, might be considered when we see a rogue FBI leadership attempting such a coup these past two plus years.)

But the Founders didn't live to see that. They did see the central government and every state as possibly having need to call all the U.S. citizens to arms from time to time. An unarmed citizenry would not be of much use in such emergencies, but a well armed citizenry would make a formidable Army when called to service to defend their homeland or any part of it. So that was their rationale to ensure that no misguided government leaders would have constitutional authority to disarm or otherwise restrict the ability of the citizens to be armed.

It’s interesting to consider the fact that the notion of ‘insurrectionist theory’ is anathema to conservative dogma:

‘I read Justice Scalia’s opinion with both great interest and trepidation to see whether he embraced insurrectionist theory, that is, the argument that the Founders adopted the Second Amendment as a check against governmental tyranny. What’s more repugnant to constitutional democracy and the rule of law – not to mention traditional conservatism – than the idea that the people should be armed to potentially go to war with their own government? Nonetheless, this theory has animated much of the individual right literature. Its popularity has undoubtedly disturbed the sleep of giants on both sides of the Atlantic. Surely, insurrectionism has had both James Madison and Edmund Burke spinning in their graves.

Clearly, Justice Scalia tried to be careful not to expressly embrace insurrectionist theory. Yet he alludes to it gingerly – a sort of toe in the water. He writes that “when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.” Call me foolish, but I was hoping that the conservative Court would expressly repudiate insurrectionist theory. Somewhere, Robespierre is smiling.’

Heller Discussion Board: A Toe in the Water - SCOTUSblog

Repugnant to a Constitutional democracy, indeed.

Needless to say, the canard that the Second Amendment authorizes armed citizens to ‘overthrow’ a government they subjectively and incorrectly perceive to have become ‘tyrannical’ is devoid of legal and Constitutional merit:

‘Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, called the idea that a right to fight against government tyranny is enshrined in the Bill of Rights the "insurrectionist theory" of the Second Amendment. (So named because an insurrectionist is someone who takes part in an armed rebellion.)

"That insurrectionist theory used to be a fringe theory of the Second Amendment but it’s become much more mainstream," said Winkler, the author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America.

Winkler attributed the surge in the theory's popularity to the increasingly extreme language used by the National Rifle Association and "a desire to frame the Second Amendment in a way that will protect military-style assault rifles."

If the insurrectionist theory is accepted, then efforts to ban semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 would be unconstitutional because those weapons would be exactly what Americans would "need to fight back against the government," Winkler said.

While Winkler agrees the Second Amendment "has the happy impact of deterring tyranny because the citizenry is armed," he does not believe the Founding Fathers intended to "give the people the right to rise up against the government."

"The Framers understood the right to bear arms as an individual right, but it wasn’t a right to stage a revolution," Winkler said. "The Constitution doesn’t provide the seeds for its own destruction."’

For many Americans, the Second Amendment is a defense against their own government

Exactly.

I disagree. The Framers were to a man quite conscious of the need to stage a revolution against a corrupt and oppressive British government. And they did.

And the Constitution was clearly written in a manner that at any time a corrupt and oppressive U.S. government set aside the protections in the Constitution or a coup was successfully accomplished, the people would have the instincts, the right, and the ability to rise up and defend themselves against such tyranny. Under the U.S. Constitution it is the people who give the government its authority. The government itself was given no power to give itself authority outside of the limitations imposed on it by the Constitution.

As Thomas Jefferson is famous for saying: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. He knew full well it would be possible that those given power would abuse it to the point the people would have to take measures into their own hands.

 

[JoeB131]

I see your emotions are getting the best of you.

Just relax. You can always go live where you have no rights. We can't.

Uh, guy, here's the thing.

When I go into work (or at my old job before I started my own business) I had to walk through three security checkpoints designed to lock down the building in case of an "active shooter". At another job, we had active shooter training conducted by the Schaumburg PD. We live in a world of metal detectors, CCTV, security guards, all because of your fetish to put more guns out there in the hands of even crazier people.

This by you is "Free"?

 

[Rigby5]

There is absolutely no ambiguity.
The Bill of Rights was only restrictions on the federal government, so could not possibly have been referring to the National Guard in the 2nd amendment, even if the National Guard had existed back then.
That would require the semantic meaning that the federal government was prohibited from disarming its own forces.

Clearly the US exists due to an armed population rebelling against tyranny, and since there were no police back then or even significant standing military, the obvious and well declared intent had to be for the preservation of the armed population.

 

[Aponi]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

Fuck that.

UBC for zero restrictions on all firearms.

If you can pass a UBC, you're safe with a machine gun, right?'


.

We have a gun trust and own class 2 .the feds will never allow the sale of new full auto to the public .