Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[Rigby5]

I don't foresee any changes to the Constitution although some minor changes are needed to keep it current. As it stands right now, if you tried to get all 50 states to agree on how to make a baloney and cheese sandwich, they would come to blows over mustard or mayo.

Good! That means the republic is working. Just because you think the U.S. Constitution needs "some minor changes" to "keep it current" doesn't mean shit if the American people don't agree with you.

And based on the bat-shit crazy bullshit you post, it's painfully obvious that the American people do not agree with you. At all.

Problem is that if not now, eventually the majority will agree with him, on things like gun control.
So it makes more sense to stick with logic as to what things like federal gun control laws would eventually do.
The argument against federal gun control is the basis for what a democratic republic actually is and how it has to work, not just mob rule or emotional appeal.

The problem with the 2nd amendment is that it was written during a time when man had was equal to his weapons. All sides could be equally armed because most could afford the weapons of the time in the Americas just to survive even without a Tyrant. It was a different time. If we look at the English Bill of Rights, it was written similar (hence the word arms instead of guns or firearms) in the 1600s when only the kings could afford the weapons of war. And then we go back to the Magna Carta in the 1200s which also covers the same thing and only kings could afford weapons of war. The 2nd amendment was nothing new even when it was penned. But for the first time, the common person could afford and had to have the weapons that could be used in war just to live day to day. The weapons finally equaled man.

Then about 1851, things started to change. There was an unrest in America. War was coming. Firearms inventors went into high gear. By the time Ft. Sumpter happened there was some real nasty weapons off the drawing boards and into testing. And tactics began to change in the use of Artillery Barrages. In 1871, the first gun controls went into affect in western cities and towns. By the time the Spanish American War came about, the weapons of war had outpaced mans humanity to man by a huge manner. By the time WWI came about for the US, the first half of the 2nd amendment was essentially worthless. And by 1871 and 1934, the last half was drastically changed. The weapons outgrew mans humanity to man.

I don't see your logic.
You seem to correctly realize that it was the low cost and ease of use of firearms that ended monarchies and allow the shift to democratic republics from 1600 to 1851.
But I do not see why you think anything has changed in the need for all households to have military grade weapons?

Your assertion that by 1871, gun control went into effect in western cities and towns is incorrect. It was only cowboys who came into town to drink and gamble who have to temporarily turn in their weapons. And they were given their weapons back when they were ready to leave. Nor were any of the local residents ever disarmed.

And your assertion that any modern advancement in weapons changed the need for a population with military grade weapons I totally disagree with. It is true weapons are slightly more powerful now, but only very slightly, and even if they were vastly more powerful, that would make no difference, as then average citizens would still need the equalizer as well.
Otherwise you no longer have a democratic republic, but a return to the strong man having the monopoly on arms and power.

Go back and reconsider the blunderbuss of the 1600s, and it can kill a dozen people with one shot.
A pair of 1850 percussion revolvers can easily kill a dozen people quickly.
WWI shotguns could easily kill far more people, more quickly than a modern AR.
I think you are over estimating the lethality of modern ARs.
And I don't see how the lethality matters.
No matter how much weapons advance, average people had still better have them as well, or else the criminals will win.
The police not only can never stop crime or be there in time, but police themselves are a corruption of the concept of a democratic republic, and are almost as much of a risk as criminals are.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I don't foresee any changes to the Constitution although some minor changes are needed to keep it current. As it stands right now, if you tried to get all 50 states to agree on how to make a baloney and cheese sandwich, they would come to blows over mustard or mayo.

Good! That means the republic is working. Just because you think the U.S. Constitution needs "some minor changes" to "keep it current" doesn't mean shit if the American people don't agree with you.

And based on the bat-shit crazy bullshit you post, it's painfully obvious that the American people do not agree with you. At all.

Problem is that if not now, eventually the majority will agree with him, on things like gun control.
So it makes more sense to stick with logic as to what things like federal gun control laws would eventually do.
The argument against federal gun control is the basis for what a democratic republic actually is and how it has to work, not just mob rule or emotional appeal.

The problem with the 2nd amendment is that it was written during a time when man had was equal to his weapons. All sides could be equally armed because most could afford the weapons of the time in the Americas just to survive even without a Tyrant. It was a different time. If we look at the English Bill of Rights, it was written similar (hence the word arms instead of guns or firearms) in the 1600s when only the kings could afford the weapons of war. And then we go back to the Magna Carta in the 1200s which also covers the same thing and only kings could afford weapons of war. The 2nd amendment was nothing new even when it was penned. But for the first time, the common person could afford and had to have the weapons that could be used in war just to live day to day. The weapons finally equaled man.

Then about 1851, things started to change. There was an unrest in America. War was coming. Firearms inventors went into high gear. By the time Ft. Sumpter happened there was some real nasty weapons off the drawing boards and into testing. And tactics began to change in the use of Artillery Barrages. In 1871, the first gun controls went into affect in western cities and towns. By the time the Spanish American War came about, the weapons of war had outpaced mans humanity to man by a huge manner. By the time WWI came about for the US, the first half of the 2nd amendment was essentially worthless. And by 1871 and 1934, the last half was drastically changed. The weapons outgrew mans humanity to man.

I don't see your logic.
You seem to correctly realize that it was the low cost and ease of use of firearms that ended monarchies and allow the shift to democratic republics from 1600 to 1851.
But I do not see why you think anything has changed in the need for all households to have military grade weapons?

Your assertion that by 1871, gun control went into effect in western cities and towns is incorrect. It was only cowboys who came into town to drink and gamble who have to temporarily turn in their weapons. And they were given their weapons back when they were ready to leave. Nor were any of the local residents ever disarmed.

And your assertion that any modern advancement in weapons changed the need for a population with military grade weapons I totally disagree with. It is true weapons are slightly more powerful now, but only very slightly, and even if they were vastly more powerful, that would make no difference, as then average citizens would still need the equalizer as well.
Otherwise you no longer have a democratic republic, but a return to the strong man having the monopoly on arms and power.

Go back and reconsider the blunderbuss of the 1600s, and it can kill a dozen people with one shot.
A pair of 1850 percussion revolvers can easily kill a dozen people quickly.
WWI shotguns could easily kill far more people, more quickly than a modern AR.
I think you are over estimating the lethality of modern ARs.
And I don't see how the lethality matters.
No matter how much weapons advance, average people had still better have them as well, or else the criminals will win.
The police not only can never stop crime or be there in time, but police themselves are a corruption of the concept of a democratic republic, and are almost as much of a risk as criminals are.

And yet you have brought up nothing that says I am wrong. You just took a bunch of things, threw them at the wall hoping at least one or two would stick. A Monkey does that at the Zoo when people walk by.

You brought up the AR. I generalized. But let's use the AR. The most recent shooting at a Walmart (Okay, doing a shooting at a walmart may have crossed many of our minds but sanity sets in quickly), what was the weapon of choice? The news never said the AR directly but I think the term "Military Style" came up more than once. That usually means the AR. That same weapon keeps coming up when you look at the high body counts in the shootings. It turns a normal shooting into a mass murder situation quickly. The AR was invented for war and a high body count. It wasn't invented to shoot a varmint unless that varmint is wearing black pajamas. Just because it can be used to open a can of beer doesn't make it a can opener. The 1934 National Firearms Act was about weapons that were being used that outgrew society. And yes, the Mob is still part of Society whether you like it or not. When the Cops and the Mobsters got into a shootout with those weapons you honestly think that civilians were unaffected by the overspray from both sides? If the Cops were forced to have to use automatic weapons on a daily basis because the bad guys all used automatic weapons the deaths of innocent people would be completely off the charts and mind numbing instead of infrequent and shocking.

Common sense gun regulations help to protect us from not only the criminal but the cops and ourselves. While it won't stop the crimes or the accidental deaths, it at least helps keep the frequency and the body counts down. If that's the only outcome then it's better than the alternative where it's a freaking free for all with high frequencies and high body counts and we aren't safe to even leave our newly installed safe rooms in our houses. Sorry, this is America and we should NEVER have to live like that.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't foresee any changes to the Constitution although some minor changes are needed to keep it current. As it stands right now, if you tried to get all 50 states to agree on how to make a baloney and cheese sandwich, they would come to blows over mustard or mayo.

Good! That means the republic is working. Just because you think the U.S. Constitution needs "some minor changes" to "keep it current" doesn't mean shit if the American people don't agree with you.

And based on the bat-shit crazy bullshit you post, it's painfully obvious that the American people do not agree with you. At all.

Problem is that if not now, eventually the majority will agree with him, on things like gun control.
So it makes more sense to stick with logic as to what things like federal gun control laws would eventually do.
The argument against federal gun control is the basis for what a democratic republic actually is and how it has to work, not just mob rule or emotional appeal.

The problem with the 2nd amendment is that it was written during a time when man had was equal to his weapons. All sides could be equally armed because most could afford the weapons of the time in the Americas just to survive even without a Tyrant. It was a different time. If we look at the English Bill of Rights, it was written similar (hence the word arms instead of guns or firearms) in the 1600s when only the kings could afford the weapons of war. And then we go back to the Magna Carta in the 1200s which also covers the same thing and only kings could afford weapons of war. The 2nd amendment was nothing new even when it was penned. But for the first time, the common person could afford and had to have the weapons that could be used in war just to live day to day. The weapons finally equaled man.

Then about 1851, things started to change. There was an unrest in America. War was coming. Firearms inventors went into high gear. By the time Ft. Sumpter happened there was some real nasty weapons off the drawing boards and into testing. And tactics began to change in the use of Artillery Barrages. In 1871, the first gun controls went into affect in western cities and towns. By the time the Spanish American War came about, the weapons of war had outpaced mans humanity to man by a huge manner. By the time WWI came about for the US, the first half of the 2nd amendment was essentially worthless. And by 1871 and 1934, the last half was drastically changed. The weapons outgrew mans humanity to man.

I don't see your logic.
You seem to correctly realize that it was the low cost and ease of use of firearms that ended monarchies and allow the shift to democratic republics from 1600 to 1851.
But I do not see why you think anything has changed in the need for all households to have military grade weapons?

Your assertion that by 1871, gun control went into effect in western cities and towns is incorrect. It was only cowboys who came into town to drink and gamble who have to temporarily turn in their weapons. And they were given their weapons back when they were ready to leave. Nor were any of the local residents ever disarmed.

And your assertion that any modern advancement in weapons changed the need for a population with military grade weapons I totally disagree with. It is true weapons are slightly more powerful now, but only very slightly, and even if they were vastly more powerful, that would make no difference, as then average citizens would still need the equalizer as well.
Otherwise you no longer have a democratic republic, but a return to the strong man having the monopoly on arms and power.

Go back and reconsider the blunderbuss of the 1600s, and it can kill a dozen people with one shot.
A pair of 1850 percussion revolvers can easily kill a dozen people quickly.
WWI shotguns could easily kill far more people, more quickly than a modern AR.
I think you are over estimating the lethality of modern ARs.
And I don't see how the lethality matters.
No matter how much weapons advance, average people had still better have them as well, or else the criminals will win.
The police not only can never stop crime or be there in time, but police themselves are a corruption of the concept of a democratic republic, and are almost as much of a risk as criminals are.

And yet you have brought up nothing that says I am wrong. You just took a bunch of things, threw them at the wall hoping at least one or two would stick. A Monkey does that at the Zoo when people walk by.

You brought up the AR. I generalized. But let's use the AR. The most recent shooting at a Walmart (Okay, doing a shooting at a walmart may have crossed many of our minds but sanity sets in quickly), what was the weapon of choice? The news never said the AR directly but I think the term "Military Style" came up more than once. That usually means the AR. That same weapon keeps coming up when you look at the high body counts in the shootings. It turns a normal shooting into a mass murder situation quickly. The AR was invented for war and a high body count. It wasn't invented to shoot a varmint unless that varmint is wearing black pajamas. Just because it can be used to open a can of beer doesn't make it a can opener. The 1934 National Firearms Act was about weapons that were being used that outgrew society. And yes, the Mob is still part of Society whether you like it or not. When the Cops and the Mobsters got into a shootout with those weapons you honestly think that civilians were unaffected by the overspray from both sides? If the Cops were forced to have to use automatic weapons on a daily basis because the bad guys all used automatic weapons the deaths of innocent people would be completely off the charts and mind numbing instead of infrequent and shocking.

Common sense gun regulations help to protect us from not only the criminal but the cops and ourselves. While it won't stop the crimes or the accidental deaths, it at least helps keep the frequency and the body counts down. If that's the only outcome then it's better than the alternative where it's a freaking free for all with high frequencies and high body counts and we aren't safe to even leave our newly installed safe rooms in our houses. Sorry, this is America and we should NEVER have to live like that.

Sorry, I still did not get your point.
I do not believe firearms have changed significantly, nor would it matter if they have increased in lethality by a factor of 100.

As for lethality, I pointed out that by the Civil War, one had sufficient firearm lethality to commit the current mass murders. That is not what changed. They just did not do mass murders then as much as now. Has nothing to do with the weapons.
And ARs are not particularly lethal. They actually are far weaker than most rifles, like the .308 winchester. And if being weaker makes them more lethal at close range due to rapid fire, the M-1 carbine had the same rate of fire, recoil, and energy as a modern AR, in WWII. In my opinion, the changes are pretty insignificant.

In my opinion, weapons not only have not outgrown society, society has become weak and defenseless, making it far too susceptible. A century ago, all homes had the obligatory shotgun over the hearth. Being unarmed now is not an improvement, but an inability to deal responsibly with anything. Which is why police now are doing too much, and becoming trigger happy.
Gun control can never prevent criminals from getting machine guns. They are cheap, easy to make, impossible to stop from being smuggled and sold. So why is it there are not shoot outs between gangsters with machineguns, and police? Because there is nothing in it for anyone. No one attacks police at all, much less with machineguns. And that is not because of gun control, that is because police do not carry large sums of money. There is nothing in it for criminals.
So it is false to believe that gun control is necessary or that it works. No one is shooting at police, and there is no way to stop people from getting any weapon they may think they want to commit a crime with. Gun control only harms honest people.

 

[Jackson]

Along with the right to bear arms should be the responsibility to prove you are sane to have that weapon. Time to test participants who want guns.

 

[Rigby5]

Along with the right to bear arms should be the responsibility to prove you are sane to have that weapon. Time to test participants who want guns.

That sounds reasonable, but if the government is becoming despotic, as all governments do eventually, how to you deal with a corrupt government that simply considers anyone who wants freedom, to be insane?
The question really is whether in a democratic republic, you trust the people or you prefer to put all your trust in government?
And if you want to trust government, then why bother with a democratic republic?
You might as well just go with a dictatorship and skip the expensive campaigns and voting.

And if someone is so insane and dangerous that you do not want them to have weapons, you really need to do a whole not more than gun control. You have to keep them away from flammables, poisons, large vehicles, explosives, etc. So gun control is pretty much just a complete waste of time.

Tell me how it is going to do any good if you deny a firearm purchase from a gun store dealer, since all the person has to do it then go to a drug dealer instead, and put in an order for any firearm they want?
If they can smuggle hundreds of pounds of illegal drugs, then a few additional firearms are nothing. And all drug dealer have firearms connections because they have to deal with turf wars, the fact they can't use banks, they can't call the police to defend them, etc. In fact, it should be pretty obvious that if we want to reduce shootings, we need to end the war on drugs.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Good! That means the republic is working. Just because you think the U.S. Constitution needs "some minor changes" to "keep it current" doesn't mean shit if the American people don't agree with you.

And based on the bat-shit crazy bullshit you post, it's painfully obvious that the American people do not agree with you. At all.

Problem is that if not now, eventually the majority will agree with him, on things like gun control.
So it makes more sense to stick with logic as to what things like federal gun control laws would eventually do.
The argument against federal gun control is the basis for what a democratic republic actually is and how it has to work, not just mob rule or emotional appeal.

The problem with the 2nd amendment is that it was written during a time when man had was equal to his weapons. All sides could be equally armed because most could afford the weapons of the time in the Americas just to survive even without a Tyrant. It was a different time. If we look at the English Bill of Rights, it was written similar (hence the word arms instead of guns or firearms) in the 1600s when only the kings could afford the weapons of war. And then we go back to the Magna Carta in the 1200s which also covers the same thing and only kings could afford weapons of war. The 2nd amendment was nothing new even when it was penned. But for the first time, the common person could afford and had to have the weapons that could be used in war just to live day to day. The weapons finally equaled man.

Then about 1851, things started to change. There was an unrest in America. War was coming. Firearms inventors went into high gear. By the time Ft. Sumpter happened there was some real nasty weapons off the drawing boards and into testing. And tactics began to change in the use of Artillery Barrages. In 1871, the first gun controls went into affect in western cities and towns. By the time the Spanish American War came about, the weapons of war had outpaced mans humanity to man by a huge manner. By the time WWI came about for the US, the first half of the 2nd amendment was essentially worthless. And by 1871 and 1934, the last half was drastically changed. The weapons outgrew mans humanity to man.

I don't see your logic.
You seem to correctly realize that it was the low cost and ease of use of firearms that ended monarchies and allow the shift to democratic republics from 1600 to 1851.
But I do not see why you think anything has changed in the need for all households to have military grade weapons?

Your assertion that by 1871, gun control went into effect in western cities and towns is incorrect. It was only cowboys who came into town to drink and gamble who have to temporarily turn in their weapons. And they were given their weapons back when they were ready to leave. Nor were any of the local residents ever disarmed.

And your assertion that any modern advancement in weapons changed the need for a population with military grade weapons I totally disagree with. It is true weapons are slightly more powerful now, but only very slightly, and even if they were vastly more powerful, that would make no difference, as then average citizens would still need the equalizer as well.
Otherwise you no longer have a democratic republic, but a return to the strong man having the monopoly on arms and power.

Go back and reconsider the blunderbuss of the 1600s, and it can kill a dozen people with one shot.
A pair of 1850 percussion revolvers can easily kill a dozen people quickly.
WWI shotguns could easily kill far more people, more quickly than a modern AR.
I think you are over estimating the lethality of modern ARs.
And I don't see how the lethality matters.
No matter how much weapons advance, average people had still better have them as well, or else the criminals will win.
The police not only can never stop crime or be there in time, but police themselves are a corruption of the concept of a democratic republic, and are almost as much of a risk as criminals are.

And yet you have brought up nothing that says I am wrong. You just took a bunch of things, threw them at the wall hoping at least one or two would stick. A Monkey does that at the Zoo when people walk by.

You brought up the AR. I generalized. But let's use the AR. The most recent shooting at a Walmart (Okay, doing a shooting at a walmart may have crossed many of our minds but sanity sets in quickly), what was the weapon of choice? The news never said the AR directly but I think the term "Military Style" came up more than once. That usually means the AR. That same weapon keeps coming up when you look at the high body counts in the shootings. It turns a normal shooting into a mass murder situation quickly. The AR was invented for war and a high body count. It wasn't invented to shoot a varmint unless that varmint is wearing black pajamas. Just because it can be used to open a can of beer doesn't make it a can opener. The 1934 National Firearms Act was about weapons that were being used that outgrew society. And yes, the Mob is still part of Society whether you like it or not. When the Cops and the Mobsters got into a shootout with those weapons you honestly think that civilians were unaffected by the overspray from both sides? If the Cops were forced to have to use automatic weapons on a daily basis because the bad guys all used automatic weapons the deaths of innocent people would be completely off the charts and mind numbing instead of infrequent and shocking.

Common sense gun regulations help to protect us from not only the criminal but the cops and ourselves. While it won't stop the crimes or the accidental deaths, it at least helps keep the frequency and the body counts down. If that's the only outcome then it's better than the alternative where it's a freaking free for all with high frequencies and high body counts and we aren't safe to even leave our newly installed safe rooms in our houses. Sorry, this is America and we should NEVER have to live like that.

Sorry, I still did not get your point.
I do not believe firearms have changed significantly, nor would it matter if they have increased in lethality by a factor of 100.

As for lethality, I pointed out that by the Civil War, one had sufficient firearm lethality to commit the current mass murders. That is not what changed. They just did not do mass murders then as much as now. Has nothing to do with the weapons.
And ARs are not particularly lethal. They actually are far weaker than most rifles, like the .308 winchester. And if being weaker makes them more lethal at close range due to rapid fire, the M-1 carbine had the same rate of fire, recoil, and energy as a modern AR, in WWII. In my opinion, the changes are pretty insignificant.

In my opinion, weapons not only have not outgrown society, society has become weak and defenseless, making it far too susceptible. A century ago, all homes had the obligatory shotgun over the hearth. Being unarmed now is not an improvement, but an inability to deal responsibly with anything. Which is why police now are doing too much, and becoming trigger happy.
Gun control can never prevent criminals from getting machine guns. They are cheap, easy to make, impossible to stop from being smuggled and sold. So why is it there are not shoot outs between gangsters with machineguns, and police? Because there is nothing in it for anyone. No one attacks police at all, much less with machineguns. And that is not because of gun control, that is because police do not carry large sums of money. There is nothing in it for criminals.
So it is false to believe that gun control is necessary or that it works. No one is shooting at police, and there is no way to stop people from getting any weapon they may think they want to commit a crime with. Gun control only harms honest people.

Okay, let's look at the flaws in the M-1 which the modern semi auto was founded on. Case in point, the Mini-14. Okay, you just emptied your mag out and it locked to the rear. You need both hands to get the spent mag out. One to hit the release and the other to rotate the mag in a forward arc until it releases. Yes, I know a person that can do it one handed but He's a Beast and not normal in any way. Now, you drop your spent mag, get another mag out of your carrier, pack, belt or whatever, put it into the opening and then rock it backward until it clicks. Now you have to use a hand to release the bolt release which slams the bolt forward. It was a work of art in 1917. But most of the gun was still conventional and used for hunting by millions of people all across the globe. There were no other real improvements in the M-1 outside of semi auto function. And in 1917, the age of the Automatics had already come and the M-1 Semi Auto setting was less accurate than the Bolt Action versions by the same manufacturer. And it was damned expensive until it became war surplus. But even as war surplus, it wasn't as big a leap as the regular hunting rifles already available at less cost to the civilian community. No big thing. It borrowed heavily from the design and function of civilian rifles.

Now, let's look at the AR. Not one ounce of that rifle borrowed from a civilian rifle in design or function. Not one ounce of cosmetics as used. It's all function with only one thing in mind. How can an 18 year old kid with minimum training, scared out of his mind, pumped up with adrenaline, faced with a large enemy force, do as much combat damage as possible in a short a time as possible. The AR meets that requirement 100%. If you have never been in a firefight, you won't understand. There is nothing pretty about an AR. Everything about it is for a reason. And not one ounce of it is so you can go out and shoot a varmint with it unless that varmint is wearing Black Pajamas. And it's just as deadly in it's semi auto mode as it used to be in it's full auto mode.

The AR is just right. The reason it's a 556 and not a 7.62 is that the 308 size would be too large and heavy, require a longer barrel, bigger mags, be twice the weight and new recruits would find it a real handful to handle. I will admit, the 556 is a bit weak and the 6.8 is going to be a better round but the problem is, the 556 does the job. And just doing the job in war means a whole hell of a lot more than doing a bang up job MOST of the time when you can get it.

You see, I look at it from a Military point of view. To me it's a tool of war. A Model 700 BDL can be used (and has been) as a tool of war. And in an invasion of this country, there are going to end up being more kills by guns like the Model 700 than the AR. You let a battle hardened well equipped Enemy get close enough for you to shoot at him with your AR, you are dead. Now, sit off a quarter of a mile or more you have a much better survival rate. He will be much better with his version of an AR than you will be with yours.

Now, there is the other weapons that the 1934 National Firearms Act covers and other acts cover. Grenades, explosive rockets, mines, and more. If those were available openly to the public, can you imagine trying to just run down to the corner 7-11 for a smoothie? Welcome to Afghanistan. We have enough fruitcakes that use the most potent weapon of war at their disposal today. We don't need to be adding to their arsenals.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Along with the right to bear arms should be the responsibility to prove you are sane to have that weapon. Time to test participants who want guns.

In certain classes of Firearms, you pretty much have to prove that. Actually, ANYONE not found unsafe or insane can get a Class of a Firearms License if they can afford one where they can own just about anything. But there is a background check done by the FBI involved that is a bit more involved than the firearms background check to purchase a gun at a gun shop. You can lie and get your gun at the gun shop and pass the background check. But you had better tell the truth on the Firearms Background Check for the FBI because it WILL be checked and there WILL be a prison sentence if you do lie on it. Otherwise, it's not really any worse and almost all of us will come through with flying colors though one.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Along with the right to bear arms should be the responsibility to prove you are sane to have that weapon. Time to test participants who want guns.

That sounds reasonable, but if the government is becoming despotic, as all governments do eventually, how to you deal with a corrupt government that simply considers anyone who wants freedom, to be insane?
The question really is whether in a democratic republic, you trust the people or you prefer to put all your trust in government?
And if you want to trust government, then why bother with a democratic republic?
You might as well just go with a dictatorship and skip the expensive campaigns and voting.

And if someone is so insane and dangerous that you do not want them to have weapons, you really need to do a whole not more than gun control. You have to keep them away from flammables, poisons, large vehicles, explosives, etc. So gun control is pretty much just a complete waste of time.

Tell me how it is going to do any good if you deny a firearm purchase from a gun store dealer, since all the person has to do it then go to a drug dealer instead, and put in an order for any firearm they want?
If they can smuggle hundreds of pounds of illegal drugs, then a few additional firearms are nothing. And all drug dealer have firearms connections because they have to deal with turf wars, the fact they can't use banks, they can't call the police to defend them, etc. In fact, it should be pretty obvious that if we want to reduce shootings, we need to end the war on drugs.

You do know you just made the case for National Universal Background Checks and holding the last registered selling criminally responsible for any action that the weapon is used, don't you.

Chicago PD knows of 10 Indiana Gun Shops where over 60% of the illegal weapons used in crimes in Chicago come from. The guns were legally purchased, including a background check. Then they changed hands in a backyard sale (still legal). Then they were transported across the border (just went illegal) into Chicago (takes about a 4 minute drive outside of rush hour). To give you an idea, In Indiana, you have to be 21 to buy liquor but you can guy long guns (like the AR) at age 18 legally along with any and all accessories and ammo you can even dream of. And if you do it at the gun shows (or the back end of a Buick in a Denny's parking lot) then no background check is necessary (or even an ID).

It doesn't do as good as it should for gun regulations if the state minutes away is totally open and providing your criminals with the illicit weapons to commit the crimes with.

 

[Brain357]

Good! That means the republic is working. Just because you think the U.S. Constitution needs "some minor changes" to "keep it current" doesn't mean shit if the American people don't agree with you.

And based on the bat-shit crazy bullshit you post, it's painfully obvious that the American people do not agree with you. At all.

Problem is that if not now, eventually the majority will agree with him, on things like gun control.
So it makes more sense to stick with logic as to what things like federal gun control laws would eventually do.
The argument against federal gun control is the basis for what a democratic republic actually is and how it has to work, not just mob rule or emotional appeal.

The problem with the 2nd amendment is that it was written during a time when man had was equal to his weapons. All sides could be equally armed because most could afford the weapons of the time in the Americas just to survive even without a Tyrant. It was a different time. If we look at the English Bill of Rights, it was written similar (hence the word arms instead of guns or firearms) in the 1600s when only the kings could afford the weapons of war. And then we go back to the Magna Carta in the 1200s which also covers the same thing and only kings could afford weapons of war. The 2nd amendment was nothing new even when it was penned. But for the first time, the common person could afford and had to have the weapons that could be used in war just to live day to day. The weapons finally equaled man.

Then about 1851, things started to change. There was an unrest in America. War was coming. Firearms inventors went into high gear. By the time Ft. Sumpter happened there was some real nasty weapons off the drawing boards and into testing. And tactics began to change in the use of Artillery Barrages. In 1871, the first gun controls went into affect in western cities and towns. By the time the Spanish American War came about, the weapons of war had outpaced mans humanity to man by a huge manner. By the time WWI came about for the US, the first half of the 2nd amendment was essentially worthless. And by 1871 and 1934, the last half was drastically changed. The weapons outgrew mans humanity to man.

I don't see your logic.
You seem to correctly realize that it was the low cost and ease of use of firearms that ended monarchies and allow the shift to democratic republics from 1600 to 1851.
But I do not see why you think anything has changed in the need for all households to have military grade weapons?

Your assertion that by 1871, gun control went into effect in western cities and towns is incorrect. It was only cowboys who came into town to drink and gamble who have to temporarily turn in their weapons. And they were given their weapons back when they were ready to leave. Nor were any of the local residents ever disarmed.

And your assertion that any modern advancement in weapons changed the need for a population with military grade weapons I totally disagree with. It is true weapons are slightly more powerful now, but only very slightly, and even if they were vastly more powerful, that would make no difference, as then average citizens would still need the equalizer as well.
Otherwise you no longer have a democratic republic, but a return to the strong man having the monopoly on arms and power.

Go back and reconsider the blunderbuss of the 1600s, and it can kill a dozen people with one shot.
A pair of 1850 percussion revolvers can easily kill a dozen people quickly.
WWI shotguns could easily kill far more people, more quickly than a modern AR.
I think you are over estimating the lethality of modern ARs.
And I don't see how the lethality matters.
No matter how much weapons advance, average people had still better have them as well, or else the criminals will win.
The police not only can never stop crime or be there in time, but police themselves are a corruption of the concept of a democratic republic, and are almost as much of a risk as criminals are.

And yet you have brought up nothing that says I am wrong. You just took a bunch of things, threw them at the wall hoping at least one or two would stick. A Monkey does that at the Zoo when people walk by.

You brought up the AR. I generalized. But let's use the AR. The most recent shooting at a Walmart (Okay, doing a shooting at a walmart may have crossed many of our minds but sanity sets in quickly), what was the weapon of choice? The news never said the AR directly but I think the term "Military Style" came up more than once. That usually means the AR. That same weapon keeps coming up when you look at the high body counts in the shootings. It turns a normal shooting into a mass murder situation quickly. The AR was invented for war and a high body count. It wasn't invented to shoot a varmint unless that varmint is wearing black pajamas. Just because it can be used to open a can of beer doesn't make it a can opener. The 1934 National Firearms Act was about weapons that were being used that outgrew society. And yes, the Mob is still part of Society whether you like it or not. When the Cops and the Mobsters got into a shootout with those weapons you honestly think that civilians were unaffected by the overspray from both sides? If the Cops were forced to have to use automatic weapons on a daily basis because the bad guys all used automatic weapons the deaths of innocent people would be completely off the charts and mind numbing instead of infrequent and shocking.

Common sense gun regulations help to protect us from not only the criminal but the cops and ourselves. While it won't stop the crimes or the accidental deaths, it at least helps keep the frequency and the body counts down. If that's the only outcome then it's better than the alternative where it's a freaking free for all with high frequencies and high body counts and we aren't safe to even leave our newly installed safe rooms in our houses. Sorry, this is America and we should NEVER have to live like that.

Sorry, I still did not get your point.
I do not believe firearms have changed significantly, nor would it matter if they have increased in lethality by a factor of 100.

As for lethality, I pointed out that by the Civil War, one had sufficient firearm lethality to commit the current mass murders. That is not what changed. They just did not do mass murders then as much as now. Has nothing to do with the weapons.
And ARs are not particularly lethal. They actually are far weaker than most rifles, like the .308 winchester. And if being weaker makes them more lethal at close range due to rapid fire, the M-1 carbine had the same rate of fire, recoil, and energy as a modern AR, in WWII. In my opinion, the changes are pretty insignificant.

In my opinion, weapons not only have not outgrown society, society has become weak and defenseless, making it far too susceptible. A century ago, all homes had the obligatory shotgun over the hearth. Being unarmed now is not an improvement, but an inability to deal responsibly with anything. Which is why police now are doing too much, and becoming trigger happy.
Gun control can never prevent criminals from getting machine guns. They are cheap, easy to make, impossible to stop from being smuggled and sold. So why is it there are not shoot outs between gangsters with machineguns, and police? Because there is nothing in it for anyone. No one attacks police at all, much less with machineguns. And that is not because of gun control, that is because police do not carry large sums of money. There is nothing in it for criminals.
So it is false to believe that gun control is necessary or that it works. No one is shooting at police, and there is no way to stop people from getting any weapon they may think they want to commit a crime with. Gun control only harms honest people.

The numbers of lethal weapons have changed drastically. Sure they have been around for a long time, but they weren't commonly owned. When I was a kid even the police still had 6 shot revolvers. Most hunters had bolt or lever action rifles. Now everyone has a pistol with 15 round capacity and ARs and AKs are all over. The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The numbers of lethal weapons have changed drastically. Sure they have been around for a long time, but they weren't commonly owned. When I was a kid even the police still had 6 shot revolvers. Most hunters had bolt or lever action rifles. Now everyone has a pistol with 15 round capacity and ARs and AKs are all over. The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing.

By "lethal" you mean they are capable of killing?

Please list for me every firearm that is not lethal.

.

 

[Rigby5]

Problem is that if not now, eventually the majority will agree with him, on things like gun control.
So it makes more sense to stick with logic as to what things like federal gun control laws would eventually do.
The argument against federal gun control is the basis for what a democratic republic actually is and how it has to work, not just mob rule or emotional appeal.

The problem with the 2nd amendment is that it was written during a time when man had was equal to his weapons. All sides could be equally armed because most could afford the weapons of the time in the Americas just to survive even without a Tyrant. It was a different time. If we look at the English Bill of Rights, it was written similar (hence the word arms instead of guns or firearms) in the 1600s when only the kings could afford the weapons of war. And then we go back to the Magna Carta in the 1200s which also covers the same thing and only kings could afford weapons of war. The 2nd amendment was nothing new even when it was penned. But for the first time, the common person could afford and had to have the weapons that could be used in war just to live day to day. The weapons finally equaled man.

Then about 1851, things started to change. There was an unrest in America. War was coming. Firearms inventors went into high gear. By the time Ft. Sumpter happened there was some real nasty weapons off the drawing boards and into testing. And tactics began to change in the use of Artillery Barrages. In 1871, the first gun controls went into affect in western cities and towns. By the time the Spanish American War came about, the weapons of war had outpaced mans humanity to man by a huge manner. By the time WWI came about for the US, the first half of the 2nd amendment was essentially worthless. And by 1871 and 1934, the last half was drastically changed. The weapons outgrew mans humanity to man.

I don't see your logic.
You seem to correctly realize that it was the low cost and ease of use of firearms that ended monarchies and allow the shift to democratic republics from 1600 to 1851.
But I do not see why you think anything has changed in the need for all households to have military grade weapons?

Your assertion that by 1871, gun control went into effect in western cities and towns is incorrect. It was only cowboys who came into town to drink and gamble who have to temporarily turn in their weapons. And they were given their weapons back when they were ready to leave. Nor were any of the local residents ever disarmed.

And your assertion that any modern advancement in weapons changed the need for a population with military grade weapons I totally disagree with. It is true weapons are slightly more powerful now, but only very slightly, and even if they were vastly more powerful, that would make no difference, as then average citizens would still need the equalizer as well.
Otherwise you no longer have a democratic republic, but a return to the strong man having the monopoly on arms and power.

Go back and reconsider the blunderbuss of the 1600s, and it can kill a dozen people with one shot.
A pair of 1850 percussion revolvers can easily kill a dozen people quickly.
WWI shotguns could easily kill far more people, more quickly than a modern AR.
I think you are over estimating the lethality of modern ARs.
And I don't see how the lethality matters.
No matter how much weapons advance, average people had still better have them as well, or else the criminals will win.
The police not only can never stop crime or be there in time, but police themselves are a corruption of the concept of a democratic republic, and are almost as much of a risk as criminals are.

And yet you have brought up nothing that says I am wrong. You just took a bunch of things, threw them at the wall hoping at least one or two would stick. A Monkey does that at the Zoo when people walk by.

You brought up the AR. I generalized. But let's use the AR. The most recent shooting at a Walmart (Okay, doing a shooting at a walmart may have crossed many of our minds but sanity sets in quickly), what was the weapon of choice? The news never said the AR directly but I think the term "Military Style" came up more than once. That usually means the AR. That same weapon keeps coming up when you look at the high body counts in the shootings. It turns a normal shooting into a mass murder situation quickly. The AR was invented for war and a high body count. It wasn't invented to shoot a varmint unless that varmint is wearing black pajamas. Just because it can be used to open a can of beer doesn't make it a can opener. The 1934 National Firearms Act was about weapons that were being used that outgrew society. And yes, the Mob is still part of Society whether you like it or not. When the Cops and the Mobsters got into a shootout with those weapons you honestly think that civilians were unaffected by the overspray from both sides? If the Cops were forced to have to use automatic weapons on a daily basis because the bad guys all used automatic weapons the deaths of innocent people would be completely off the charts and mind numbing instead of infrequent and shocking.

Common sense gun regulations help to protect us from not only the criminal but the cops and ourselves. While it won't stop the crimes or the accidental deaths, it at least helps keep the frequency and the body counts down. If that's the only outcome then it's better than the alternative where it's a freaking free for all with high frequencies and high body counts and we aren't safe to even leave our newly installed safe rooms in our houses. Sorry, this is America and we should NEVER have to live like that.

Sorry, I still did not get your point.
I do not believe firearms have changed significantly, nor would it matter if they have increased in lethality by a factor of 100.

As for lethality, I pointed out that by the Civil War, one had sufficient firearm lethality to commit the current mass murders. That is not what changed. They just did not do mass murders then as much as now. Has nothing to do with the weapons.
And ARs are not particularly lethal. They actually are far weaker than most rifles, like the .308 winchester. And if being weaker makes them more lethal at close range due to rapid fire, the M-1 carbine had the same rate of fire, recoil, and energy as a modern AR, in WWII. In my opinion, the changes are pretty insignificant.

In my opinion, weapons not only have not outgrown society, society has become weak and defenseless, making it far too susceptible. A century ago, all homes had the obligatory shotgun over the hearth. Being unarmed now is not an improvement, but an inability to deal responsibly with anything. Which is why police now are doing too much, and becoming trigger happy.
Gun control can never prevent criminals from getting machine guns. They are cheap, easy to make, impossible to stop from being smuggled and sold. So why is it there are not shoot outs between gangsters with machineguns, and police? Because there is nothing in it for anyone. No one attacks police at all, much less with machineguns. And that is not because of gun control, that is because police do not carry large sums of money. There is nothing in it for criminals.
So it is false to believe that gun control is necessary or that it works. No one is shooting at police, and there is no way to stop people from getting any weapon they may think they want to commit a crime with. Gun control only harms honest people.

Okay, let's look at the flaws in the M-1 which the modern semi auto was founded on. Case in point, the Mini-14. Okay, you just emptied your mag out and it locked to the rear. You need both hands to get the spent mag out. One to hit the release and the other to rotate the mag in a forward arc until it releases. Yes, I know a person that can do it one handed but He's a Beast and not normal in any way. Now, you drop your spent mag, get another mag out of your carrier, pack, belt or whatever, put it into the opening and then rock it backward until it clicks. Now you have to use a hand to release the bolt release which slams the bolt forward. It was a work of art in 1917. But most of the gun was still conventional and used for hunting by millions of people all across the globe. There were no other real improvements in the M-1 outside of semi auto function. And in 1917, the age of the Automatics had already come and the M-1 Semi Auto setting was less accurate than the Bolt Action versions by the same manufacturer. And it was damned expensive until it became war surplus. But even as war surplus, it wasn't as big a leap as the regular hunting rifles already available at less cost to the civilian community. No big thing. It borrowed heavily from the design and function of civilian rifles.

Now, let's look at the AR. Not one ounce of that rifle borrowed from a civilian rifle in design or function. Not one ounce of cosmetics as used. It's all function with only one thing in mind. How can an 18 year old kid with minimum training, scared out of his mind, pumped up with adrenaline, faced with a large enemy force, do as much combat damage as possible in a short a time as possible. The AR meets that requirement 100%. If you have never been in a firefight, you won't understand. There is nothing pretty about an AR. Everything about it is for a reason. And not one ounce of it is so you can go out and shoot a varmint with it unless that varmint is wearing Black Pajamas. And it's just as deadly in it's semi auto mode as it used to be in it's full auto mode.

The AR is just right. The reason it's a 556 and not a 7.62 is that the 308 size would be too large and heavy, require a longer barrel, bigger mags, be twice the weight and new recruits would find it a real handful to handle. I will admit, the 556 is a bit weak and the 6.8 is going to be a better round but the problem is, the 556 does the job. And just doing the job in war means a whole hell of a lot more than doing a bang up job MOST of the time when you can get it.

You see, I look at it from a Military point of view. To me it's a tool of war. A Model 700 BDL can be used (and has been) as a tool of war. And in an invasion of this country, there are going to end up being more kills by guns like the Model 700 than the AR. You let a battle hardened well equipped Enemy get close enough for you to shoot at him with your AR, you are dead. Now, sit off a quarter of a mile or more you have a much better survival rate. He will be much better with his version of an AR than you will be with yours.

Now, there is the other weapons that the 1934 National Firearms Act covers and other acts cover. Grenades, explosive rockets, mines, and more. If those were available openly to the public, can you imagine trying to just run down to the corner 7-11 for a smoothie? Welcome to Afghanistan. We have enough fruitcakes that use the most potent weapon of war at their disposal today. We don't need to be adding to their arsenals.

Sorry, I disagree.
I prefer and think the M-1 carbine is vastly superior to the AR.
I think the AR is one of the worst rifles ever built.
It is incredibly inferior in every way.

First of all, instead of a piston, the AR uses "direct impingement", which means a tiny stainless steel tube ported off the front of the barrel, and going all the way back to the bolt carrier. This always gets clogged up, can not be cleaned, and is not adjustable for temperature or ammunition load. Its awful. The only other rifles I know that use direct impingement, the Ljungman, Hakim, and Maas, also do not work well due to these same problems, jamming and fouling.

Then there is the 8 lug bolt. That is just stupid. If there is dirt in any locking lug, it won't work, so you want to minimize lugs. Many rifles and pistols, like the FN FAL, only have 1 large locking ramp. The 8 lug, rotating bolt of the AR is just works very badly.

Then there is the separate cocking lever on the AR. While it mean there is no live lever moving back and forth with the bolt, it does not work because you need a live lever once the rifle gets dirty or hot and the bolt is not seating perfectly. So on the AR, they had to add a side cocking assist push button, and machine in a whole bunch of awful notches in the bolt. Ridiculous. All other rifles just use a live cocking bolt handle instead.

ARs are also famous for lots of plastic, like the foregrip, which always easily break.

Then there is the light weight and aluminum, which is bad in my opinion, because is does not absorb recoil as much, wears out very fast, and does not allow a steady shot.

Then there is the straight back design of the stock. While that means the gun does not climb as much with each shot, it means more felt recoil, so causes the need for the delicate stock damper, and means you don't get to sight down the barrel, but instead have the elevated sight that catches on everything.

Etc.

I could go on, but my point is that the AR is not superior or more deadly, but was just a marketing ploy
The popularity was because it became inexpensive due to the surplus market.
So in reality, the Assault weapons ban is just trying to make inexpensive firearms illegal.
It is as undemocratic as you can get, trying to only allow the wealthy to have arms.

Then there are grenades, explosive rockets, mines, and more. And the reality is those ARE available openly to the public, and always will be. Yet there is no problem, and never will be. I can go buy dynamite whenever I want. I have done that several times already, to remove stumps. I can make explosives out of fertilizer and powdered aluminum. I can buy tannerite as much as I want. But there has never been any problem. In fact, after WWI, they were selling surplus Thompson Machineguns for $27 mail order, and it was only Prohibition that caused a problem. Most people were not interested. So there is no problem and these laws improved nothing. All they did was to insult the whole idea of a democratic republic.

Sure there are fruitcakes that should not have any weapons at all, much less good weapons. But they then also should not have a vehicle, flammable, poisons, or many other things as well. And the only way to make them safe is by reversing what Reagan did in 1986, and put these dangerous people back into institutions. You don't try to make the world nerf safe, instead you make the real world safe by supervising the whacko individuals. Any and all gun control is inherently illegal, unproductive, and totally corrupt, in a democratic republic.

 

[Rigby5]

Along with the right to bear arms should be the responsibility to prove you are sane to have that weapon. Time to test participants who want guns.

That sounds reasonable, but if the government is becoming despotic, as all governments do eventually, how to you deal with a corrupt government that simply considers anyone who wants freedom, to be insane?
The question really is whether in a democratic republic, you trust the people or you prefer to put all your trust in government?
And if you want to trust government, then why bother with a democratic republic?
You might as well just go with a dictatorship and skip the expensive campaigns and voting.

And if someone is so insane and dangerous that you do not want them to have weapons, you really need to do a whole not more than gun control. You have to keep them away from flammables, poisons, large vehicles, explosives, etc. So gun control is pretty much just a complete waste of time.

Tell me how it is going to do any good if you deny a firearm purchase from a gun store dealer, since all the person has to do it then go to a drug dealer instead, and put in an order for any firearm they want?
If they can smuggle hundreds of pounds of illegal drugs, then a few additional firearms are nothing. And all drug dealer have firearms connections because they have to deal with turf wars, the fact they can't use banks, they can't call the police to defend them, etc. In fact, it should be pretty obvious that if we want to reduce shootings, we need to end the war on drugs.

You do know you just made the case for National Universal Background Checks and holding the last registered selling criminally responsible for any action that the weapon is used, don't you.

Chicago PD knows of 10 Indiana Gun Shops where over 60% of the illegal weapons used in crimes in Chicago come from. The guns were legally purchased, including a background check. Then they changed hands in a backyard sale (still legal). Then they were transported across the border (just went illegal) into Chicago (takes about a 4 minute drive outside of rush hour). To give you an idea, In Indiana, you have to be 21 to buy liquor but you can guy long guns (like the AR) at age 18 legally along with any and all accessories and ammo you can even dream of. And if you do it at the gun shows (or the back end of a Buick in a Denny's parking lot) then no background check is necessary (or even an ID).

It doesn't do as good as it should for gun regulations if the state minutes away is totally open and providing your criminals with the illicit weapons to commit the crimes with.

First of all, any and all federal weapons law are and will always be illegal due to the Bill of Rights reserving that jurisdiction to the states.
The fact the SCOTUS allows federal weapons laws, is just total anarchy and corruption, which destroys the Rule of Law.

Second is that arms are lost, stolen, and owner die of old age, so there is no way to prevent criminals from getting them illegally, and it is illegal to hold the registered buyers liable.
But that is NOT how most people get their illegal guns.
They get them through illegal drug dealers, because the War on Drugs have caused millions of people in the US to have become wealthy through drug smuggling.
They have to have guns because they are not allowed to use banks or call the police for defense.
Almost all the guns and murders in the US are entirely due to the illegal federal War on Drugs.
And if we stopped that, almost all the guns and murders would quickly stop, just as they did when we ended Prohibition of Alcohol.

 

[Rigby5]

Problem is that if not now, eventually the majority will agree with him, on things like gun control.
So it makes more sense to stick with logic as to what things like federal gun control laws would eventually do.
The argument against federal gun control is the basis for what a democratic republic actually is and how it has to work, not just mob rule or emotional appeal.

The problem with the 2nd amendment is that it was written during a time when man had was equal to his weapons. All sides could be equally armed because most could afford the weapons of the time in the Americas just to survive even without a Tyrant. It was a different time. If we look at the English Bill of Rights, it was written similar (hence the word arms instead of guns or firearms) in the 1600s when only the kings could afford the weapons of war. And then we go back to the Magna Carta in the 1200s which also covers the same thing and only kings could afford weapons of war. The 2nd amendment was nothing new even when it was penned. But for the first time, the common person could afford and had to have the weapons that could be used in war just to live day to day. The weapons finally equaled man.

Then about 1851, things started to change. There was an unrest in America. War was coming. Firearms inventors went into high gear. By the time Ft. Sumpter happened there was some real nasty weapons off the drawing boards and into testing. And tactics began to change in the use of Artillery Barrages. In 1871, the first gun controls went into affect in western cities and towns. By the time the Spanish American War came about, the weapons of war had outpaced mans humanity to man by a huge manner. By the time WWI came about for the US, the first half of the 2nd amendment was essentially worthless. And by 1871 and 1934, the last half was drastically changed. The weapons outgrew mans humanity to man.

I don't see your logic.
You seem to correctly realize that it was the low cost and ease of use of firearms that ended monarchies and allow the shift to democratic republics from 1600 to 1851.
But I do not see why you think anything has changed in the need for all households to have military grade weapons?

Your assertion that by 1871, gun control went into effect in western cities and towns is incorrect. It was only cowboys who came into town to drink and gamble who have to temporarily turn in their weapons. And they were given their weapons back when they were ready to leave. Nor were any of the local residents ever disarmed.

And your assertion that any modern advancement in weapons changed the need for a population with military grade weapons I totally disagree with. It is true weapons are slightly more powerful now, but only very slightly, and even if they were vastly more powerful, that would make no difference, as then average citizens would still need the equalizer as well.
Otherwise you no longer have a democratic republic, but a return to the strong man having the monopoly on arms and power.

Go back and reconsider the blunderbuss of the 1600s, and it can kill a dozen people with one shot.
A pair of 1850 percussion revolvers can easily kill a dozen people quickly.
WWI shotguns could easily kill far more people, more quickly than a modern AR.
I think you are over estimating the lethality of modern ARs.
And I don't see how the lethality matters.
No matter how much weapons advance, average people had still better have them as well, or else the criminals will win.
The police not only can never stop crime or be there in time, but police themselves are a corruption of the concept of a democratic republic, and are almost as much of a risk as criminals are.

And yet you have brought up nothing that says I am wrong. You just took a bunch of things, threw them at the wall hoping at least one or two would stick. A Monkey does that at the Zoo when people walk by.

You brought up the AR. I generalized. But let's use the AR. The most recent shooting at a Walmart (Okay, doing a shooting at a walmart may have crossed many of our minds but sanity sets in quickly), what was the weapon of choice? The news never said the AR directly but I think the term "Military Style" came up more than once. That usually means the AR. That same weapon keeps coming up when you look at the high body counts in the shootings. It turns a normal shooting into a mass murder situation quickly. The AR was invented for war and a high body count. It wasn't invented to shoot a varmint unless that varmint is wearing black pajamas. Just because it can be used to open a can of beer doesn't make it a can opener. The 1934 National Firearms Act was about weapons that were being used that outgrew society. And yes, the Mob is still part of Society whether you like it or not. When the Cops and the Mobsters got into a shootout with those weapons you honestly think that civilians were unaffected by the overspray from both sides? If the Cops were forced to have to use automatic weapons on a daily basis because the bad guys all used automatic weapons the deaths of innocent people would be completely off the charts and mind numbing instead of infrequent and shocking.

Common sense gun regulations help to protect us from not only the criminal but the cops and ourselves. While it won't stop the crimes or the accidental deaths, it at least helps keep the frequency and the body counts down. If that's the only outcome then it's better than the alternative where it's a freaking free for all with high frequencies and high body counts and we aren't safe to even leave our newly installed safe rooms in our houses. Sorry, this is America and we should NEVER have to live like that.

Sorry, I still did not get your point.
I do not believe firearms have changed significantly, nor would it matter if they have increased in lethality by a factor of 100.

As for lethality, I pointed out that by the Civil War, one had sufficient firearm lethality to commit the current mass murders. That is not what changed. They just did not do mass murders then as much as now. Has nothing to do with the weapons.
And ARs are not particularly lethal. They actually are far weaker than most rifles, like the .308 winchester. And if being weaker makes them more lethal at close range due to rapid fire, the M-1 carbine had the same rate of fire, recoil, and energy as a modern AR, in WWII. In my opinion, the changes are pretty insignificant.

In my opinion, weapons not only have not outgrown society, society has become weak and defenseless, making it far too susceptible. A century ago, all homes had the obligatory shotgun over the hearth. Being unarmed now is not an improvement, but an inability to deal responsibly with anything. Which is why police now are doing too much, and becoming trigger happy.
Gun control can never prevent criminals from getting machine guns. They are cheap, easy to make, impossible to stop from being smuggled and sold. So why is it there are not shoot outs between gangsters with machineguns, and police? Because there is nothing in it for anyone. No one attacks police at all, much less with machineguns. And that is not because of gun control, that is because police do not carry large sums of money. There is nothing in it for criminals.
So it is false to believe that gun control is necessary or that it works. No one is shooting at police, and there is no way to stop people from getting any weapon they may think they want to commit a crime with. Gun control only harms honest people.

The numbers of lethal weapons have changed drastically. Sure they have been around for a long time, but they weren't commonly owned. When I was a kid even the police still had 6 shot revolvers. Most hunters had bolt or lever action rifles. Now everyone has a pistol with 15 round capacity and ARs and AKs are all over. The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing.

Wrong.
The entire source and cause for the increase in firepower is the War on Drugs.
Look at the stats, and you instantly see big spikes in murder from Alcohol Prohibition and the War on Drugs.
The war on drugs is illegal and stupid, since it entices poor people with promises of big profits, and requires them to be armed since they can't use banks, police, or other means of defending their turf.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The problem with the 2nd amendment is that it was written during a time when man had was equal to his weapons. All sides could be equally armed because most could afford the weapons of the time in the Americas just to survive even without a Tyrant. It was a different time. If we look at the English Bill of Rights, it was written similar (hence the word arms instead of guns or firearms) in the 1600s when only the kings could afford the weapons of war. And then we go back to the Magna Carta in the 1200s which also covers the same thing and only kings could afford weapons of war. The 2nd amendment was nothing new even when it was penned. But for the first time, the common person could afford and had to have the weapons that could be used in war just to live day to day. The weapons finally equaled man.

Then about 1851, things started to change. There was an unrest in America. War was coming. Firearms inventors went into high gear. By the time Ft. Sumpter happened there was some real nasty weapons off the drawing boards and into testing. And tactics began to change in the use of Artillery Barrages. In 1871, the first gun controls went into affect in western cities and towns. By the time the Spanish American War came about, the weapons of war had outpaced mans humanity to man by a huge manner. By the time WWI came about for the US, the first half of the 2nd amendment was essentially worthless. And by 1871 and 1934, the last half was drastically changed. The weapons outgrew mans humanity to man.

I don't see your logic.
You seem to correctly realize that it was the low cost and ease of use of firearms that ended monarchies and allow the shift to democratic republics from 1600 to 1851.
But I do not see why you think anything has changed in the need for all households to have military grade weapons?

Your assertion that by 1871, gun control went into effect in western cities and towns is incorrect. It was only cowboys who came into town to drink and gamble who have to temporarily turn in their weapons. And they were given their weapons back when they were ready to leave. Nor were any of the local residents ever disarmed.

And your assertion that any modern advancement in weapons changed the need for a population with military grade weapons I totally disagree with. It is true weapons are slightly more powerful now, but only very slightly, and even if they were vastly more powerful, that would make no difference, as then average citizens would still need the equalizer as well.
Otherwise you no longer have a democratic republic, but a return to the strong man having the monopoly on arms and power.

Go back and reconsider the blunderbuss of the 1600s, and it can kill a dozen people with one shot.
A pair of 1850 percussion revolvers can easily kill a dozen people quickly.
WWI shotguns could easily kill far more people, more quickly than a modern AR.
I think you are over estimating the lethality of modern ARs.
And I don't see how the lethality matters.
No matter how much weapons advance, average people had still better have them as well, or else the criminals will win.
The police not only can never stop crime or be there in time, but police themselves are a corruption of the concept of a democratic republic, and are almost as much of a risk as criminals are.

And yet you have brought up nothing that says I am wrong. You just took a bunch of things, threw them at the wall hoping at least one or two would stick. A Monkey does that at the Zoo when people walk by.

You brought up the AR. I generalized. But let's use the AR. The most recent shooting at a Walmart (Okay, doing a shooting at a walmart may have crossed many of our minds but sanity sets in quickly), what was the weapon of choice? The news never said the AR directly but I think the term "Military Style" came up more than once. That usually means the AR. That same weapon keeps coming up when you look at the high body counts in the shootings. It turns a normal shooting into a mass murder situation quickly. The AR was invented for war and a high body count. It wasn't invented to shoot a varmint unless that varmint is wearing black pajamas. Just because it can be used to open a can of beer doesn't make it a can opener. The 1934 National Firearms Act was about weapons that were being used that outgrew society. And yes, the Mob is still part of Society whether you like it or not. When the Cops and the Mobsters got into a shootout with those weapons you honestly think that civilians were unaffected by the overspray from both sides? If the Cops were forced to have to use automatic weapons on a daily basis because the bad guys all used automatic weapons the deaths of innocent people would be completely off the charts and mind numbing instead of infrequent and shocking.

Common sense gun regulations help to protect us from not only the criminal but the cops and ourselves. While it won't stop the crimes or the accidental deaths, it at least helps keep the frequency and the body counts down. If that's the only outcome then it's better than the alternative where it's a freaking free for all with high frequencies and high body counts and we aren't safe to even leave our newly installed safe rooms in our houses. Sorry, this is America and we should NEVER have to live like that.

Sorry, I still did not get your point.
I do not believe firearms have changed significantly, nor would it matter if they have increased in lethality by a factor of 100.

As for lethality, I pointed out that by the Civil War, one had sufficient firearm lethality to commit the current mass murders. That is not what changed. They just did not do mass murders then as much as now. Has nothing to do with the weapons.
And ARs are not particularly lethal. They actually are far weaker than most rifles, like the .308 winchester. And if being weaker makes them more lethal at close range due to rapid fire, the M-1 carbine had the same rate of fire, recoil, and energy as a modern AR, in WWII. In my opinion, the changes are pretty insignificant.

In my opinion, weapons not only have not outgrown society, society has become weak and defenseless, making it far too susceptible. A century ago, all homes had the obligatory shotgun over the hearth. Being unarmed now is not an improvement, but an inability to deal responsibly with anything. Which is why police now are doing too much, and becoming trigger happy.
Gun control can never prevent criminals from getting machine guns. They are cheap, easy to make, impossible to stop from being smuggled and sold. So why is it there are not shoot outs between gangsters with machineguns, and police? Because there is nothing in it for anyone. No one attacks police at all, much less with machineguns. And that is not because of gun control, that is because police do not carry large sums of money. There is nothing in it for criminals.
So it is false to believe that gun control is necessary or that it works. No one is shooting at police, and there is no way to stop people from getting any weapon they may think they want to commit a crime with. Gun control only harms honest people.

The numbers of lethal weapons have changed drastically. Sure they have been around for a long time, but they weren't commonly owned. When I was a kid even the police still had 6 shot revolvers. Most hunters had bolt or lever action rifles. Now everyone has a pistol with 15 round capacity and ARs and AKs are all over. The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing.

Wrong.
The entire source and cause for the increase in firepower is the War on Drugs.
Look at the stats, and you instantly see big spikes in murder from Alcohol Prohibition and the War on Drugs.
The war on drugs is illegal and stupid, since it entices poor people with promises of big profits, and requires them to be armed since they can't use banks, police, or other means of defending their turf.

I wrote a paper seminar on that very comparison. The similarities are SHOCKING.

And the big scary gun labeled as the boogyman was the Thomson Sub Machine Gun.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Along with the right to bear arms should be the responsibility to prove you are sane to have that weapon. Time to test participants who want guns.

That sounds reasonable, but if the government is becoming despotic, as all governments do eventually, how to you deal with a corrupt government that simply considers anyone who wants freedom, to be insane?
The question really is whether in a democratic republic, you trust the people or you prefer to put all your trust in government?
And if you want to trust government, then why bother with a democratic republic?
You might as well just go with a dictatorship and skip the expensive campaigns and voting.

And if someone is so insane and dangerous that you do not want them to have weapons, you really need to do a whole not more than gun control. You have to keep them away from flammables, poisons, large vehicles, explosives, etc. So gun control is pretty much just a complete waste of time.

Tell me how it is going to do any good if you deny a firearm purchase from a gun store dealer, since all the person has to do it then go to a drug dealer instead, and put in an order for any firearm they want?
If they can smuggle hundreds of pounds of illegal drugs, then a few additional firearms are nothing. And all drug dealer have firearms connections because they have to deal with turf wars, the fact they can't use banks, they can't call the police to defend them, etc. In fact, it should be pretty obvious that if we want to reduce shootings, we need to end the war on drugs.

You do know you just made the case for National Universal Background Checks and holding the last registered selling criminally responsible for any action that the weapon is used, don't you.

Chicago PD knows of 10 Indiana Gun Shops where over 60% of the illegal weapons used in crimes in Chicago come from. The guns were legally purchased, including a background check. Then they changed hands in a backyard sale (still legal). Then they were transported across the border (just went illegal) into Chicago (takes about a 4 minute drive outside of rush hour). To give you an idea, In Indiana, you have to be 21 to buy liquor but you can guy long guns (like the AR) at age 18 legally along with any and all accessories and ammo you can even dream of. And if you do it at the gun shows (or the back end of a Buick in a Denny's parking lot) then no background check is necessary (or even an ID).

It doesn't do as good as it should for gun regulations if the state minutes away is totally open and providing your criminals with the illicit weapons to commit the crimes with.

First of all, any and all federal weapons law are and will always be illegal due to the Bill of Rights reserving that jurisdiction to the states.
The fact the SCOTUS allows federal weapons laws, is just total anarchy and corruption, which destroys the Rule of Law.

Second is that arms are lost, stolen, and owner die of old age, so there is no way to prevent criminals from getting them illegally, and it is illegal to hold the registered buyers liable.
But that is NOT how most people get their illegal guns.
They get them through illegal drug dealers, because the War on Drugs have caused millions of people in the US to have become wealthy through drug smuggling.
They have to have guns because they are not allowed to use banks or call the police for defense.
Almost all the guns and murders in the US are entirely due to the illegal federal War on Drugs.
And if we stopped that, almost all the guns and murders would quickly stop, just as they did when we ended Prohibition of Alcohol.

Over 60% of the weapons used in crimes in Chicago were legally purchased in Indiana just a 4 minute drive from the suburbs of Chicago according to the Chicago Police Chief. They weren't stolen, they didn't get shipped in by drug smugglers, they weren't inherited. They were purchased legally in Indiana and then illegally shipped over the state border. I suggest before you keep running your mouth, do a bit of research first.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Along with the right to bear arms should be the responsibility to prove you are sane to have that weapon. Time to test participants who want guns.

Apply this argument to the right to have an abortion.
See what the pro-abortion crowd says.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry, I disagree.
I prefer and think the M-1 carbine is vastly superior to the AR.
I think the AR is one of the worst rifles ever built.
It is incredibly inferior in every way.

This is absolute nonsense.

 

[Jackson]

My opinion on guns is changing. I think the machine gun or guns holding massive ammo type of weapons should be banned. There is no good reason to have a massive killing need.

I understand the original reason for the gun but that was long ago. If our freedom is ever in danger from other countries, we can always have the legislature to allow those weapons back to the people.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

My opinion on guns is changing. I think the machine gun or guns holding massive ammo type of weapons should be banned. There is no good reason to have a massive killing need.

I understand the original reason for the gun but that was long ago. If our freedom is ever in danger from other countries, we can always have the legislature to allow those weapons back to the people.

Back when the 2nd amendment was written, most weapons were kept in Armories. The muskets were private but the Rifles were in Armories. It was hard enough for Gen. Washington to get Congress to allocate for the Rifles over the Muskets as it were unless they were stored in Federal controlled Armories. States also had state armories with rifles. When planting and harvest came about, the Militias would turn in their rifles, grab their muskets and head home to take care of business. The Rifle in 1777 was the equiv to the full auto weapons of today. The British were outgunned with having only a handful of Rifles and none in the Colonies.

There were times when the civilians would revolt over extremely bad government (bad police, etc.) and have to break into the local armory for weapons. While not common, it wasn't unheard of. Until after WWI, most of the population didn't even own a gun other than a shotgun. There were instances when the population had to break into the armories and arm themselves with military rifles (mostly bolt action). I really don't know when that went out of vogue but it went all the way into the first part of the 20th century. In the end, it usually was settle peacefully and the weapons were returned. The problem with the 2nd amendment is a late 20th and 21st century invention.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My opinion on guns is changing. I think the machine gun or guns holding massive ammo type of weapons should be banned. There is no good reason to have a massive killing need.

How many rounds does this gun hold?