The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[Rigby5]

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Easy to answer.
Go back the the Revolutionary war, and the most massive weapons were cannon.
And who owned all the cannon in the revolutionary war?
It was private individuals.

Private individuals are ALWAYS more trustworthy than public figures because public figures are always working for pay.
That is why the founders were strongly against any large, mercenary, standing military, and instead wanted citizens soldiers.
The wisdom of that is even more obvious now, after war crimes by our own military, like Shock and Awe.

Not only must all weapons the military need be available to average individuals, but it is the military we need to lock up these weapons from.

Very good. Let's look at the times when the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights as well as the US Constitution was written.

Canons were private owned by the Rich. The common person could not afford a canon. That Canon would have fed and clothed his family for years. The Revolutionaries "borrowed" the canons and were expected to return them in good working condition or pay for their replacement after they won. It didn't really matter what year we are talking about. Canons are a rich person weapon. Those canons that are on display in town centers were donated by rich people.

Now, let's take a look at sidearms and longarms. In 1266 (the original 2nd amendment) swords were only owned by Kings and such. They were so expensive that the commoners could ill afford to own one. Yah, I know, in all those moves, you see everyone walking about with one on their hip but that's just the movies. Even in the 1600s when the English Bill of Rights was written. Governments and Rich had swords and such. Pretty much, if you were a private citizen with one, you were sponsored by a rich donor. But the Kings and such kept a supply in Armories in case of war. In case of War, they would meter them out so the new army could be trained, the new army would go to war. If they won, the army wasn't so new (nor so large anymore) and would come home, turn in their weapons and almost any other weapon they picked up (looted) to the armory and head home. If they did keep a sword as booty, they were allowed to take it home. The King knew that they sword wouldn't stay a sword for very long. It would be resmelted into useful things for the farmers and merchants. This is where the saying "Swords to Plowshares" comes from. It has a slightly different meaning today but in the 1600s and back, that's what it meant. The primary weapon of the day was a short bow and a dagger.

Enter the Firearms. Gearing up for the Revolutionary war, General George approached the newly formed Congress and wanted them to purchase a new gun. That gun would be the property of the newly formed America. They fought him tooth and nail. luckily, ol' George was quite persuasive. He got the new guns. The Muskets that the farmers who answered the call were laid aside for this new gun. It was the new gun with rifled barrels. Washington had them in his Armories and go them into the troops hands and got them trained in their uses. All of a sudden, that ragtag bunch of farmers became a fighting force. They went from losing battles to winning battles. Meanwhile, the English had only a handful of the new rifled barreled guns in their entire inventory and none were in the Colonies. The new Rifled Barrels meant that instead of trying to get within 40 yds for a guaranteed kill, you could get that same kill at 100yds and with a special person, it was possible to go out even over 250 yds. Although the British never really took the Colonials that seriously, even if they had I still think with the new weapon, Washington's forces would have prevailed. It was just a baby step in the revolution of guns but an important one. After the war, the newly formed Government didn't release those weapons to the Civilian population. They had the troops turn them in and then they placed them back into armories. The Rifle was still slightly out of reach for the common person. It was still a rich persons toy.

This is why, even into the early 20th century, if the civilian population were to even have a chance to go up against the local government the first thing they had to do was overrun the Armory for the weapons. Their primary weapon of the day was a single shot rifle and a shotgun. The Armory had the bolt actions and the Automatics along with some other nasty little surprises. One incident was made famous. I can't remember the location nor the date but I think at least one of you "Southern Boys" can help out there.

Because of these types of things, the weapons outgrowing mans ability to kill each other, the US had adopted a whole series of laws that ensures that the Federal Military will never be involved in a Civil War again. In order to get to a civil war, logistics and training has to happen and the civilian authorities will break it up long before that. So the US Military doesn't have a role. And the US Military is the ones with the really big, nasty weapons of war meant to combat the other nations with the other big and nasty weapons of war.

No, you got it wrong.

The lowering price of firearms from 1500 on is what ended the monarchies.
It is what made average individuals equal to the best trained soldiers.
The result was French and American Revolutions, which would otherwise not have been possible.
Firearms equate to democracy and individual rights.

And no, Washington had it wrong and wanted smooth bore muskets because they had a more rapid rate of fire, due to quicker reloads.

{...
Brown Bess
The "Brown Bess" muzzleloading smoothbore musket was one of the most commonly used weapons in the American Revolution. While this was a British weapon, it was used heavily by the revolutionary patriots. The musket was used to fire a single shot ball, or a cluster style shot which fired multiple projectiles giving the weapon a "shotgun" effect. There were two variations of the Brown Bess: the Short Land Pattern and the Long Land Pattern. The Short Land was shorter, less bulky, less heavy than the Long Land. Most American fighters implemented the Long Land Pattern.[1]

Charleville musket
Large numbers of Charleville Model 1763 and 1766 muskets were imported into the United States from France during the American Revolution, due in large part to the influence of Marquis de Lafayette.[6] The Charleville 1766 heavily influenced the design of the Springfield Musket of 1795.

American-made muskets
Many muskets were produced locally by various gunsmiths in the colonies, often reusing parts from other weapons. These are known as "Committee of Safety" muskets, as they were funded by the fledgling local government. Because of the need to produce as many weapons as quick as possible, and also out of fear of prosecution by the British government, many of the muskets did not bear a maker's mark. Some were simply marked as property of a state, or "US," or U:STATES," or "UNITED STATES." [2]

Long rifles
Long rifles were an American design of the 18th century, produced by individual German gunsmiths in Pennsylvania. Based on the Jäger rifle,[3] long rifles, known as "Pennsylvania Rifles", were used by snipers and light infantry throughout the Revolutionary War. The grooved barrel increased the range and accuracy by spinning a snugly fitted ball, giving an accurate range of 300 yards compared to 100 yards for smoothbore muskets. Drawbacks included the low rate of fire due to the complicated reloading process, the impossibility to fit it with a bayonet, the high cost, and lack of standardization that required extensive training with a particular rifle for a soldier to realize the weapon's full potential. Due to the drawbacks, George Washington argued for a limited role of rifles in the Colonial military, while Congress was more enthusiastic and authorized the raising of several companies of riflemen.[4] Long rifles played a significant part in the battles of Saratoga and New Orleans, where rifle units picked off officers to disrupt British command and control, but required support by units armed with smoothbore muskets or by artillery to prevent the riflemen from being overrun.
...}

List of infantry weapons in the American Revolution - Wikipedia

Most of the Revolutionary war was won with captured muskets or domestic Kentucky Long Rifles make and owned by civilians.

Whether expensive or not, clearly the whole democratic republic is greatly enhanced by an armed population.

I quoted American History. You quote Wiki. If you believe the Americans needed the English to make guns, you would be wrong. America had it's premiere gun makers all along. Plus the foundries and materials. The Kentucky Rifle (misleading name as it was produced in Pennsylvania) was ALL American. At the beginning of the war, both sides used British flintlocks. The British stuck with their Brown Bess while the French started providing the Americans with the French Charleville musket which loaded faster than the brown bess. But the Kentucky Rifle was only used for sniping as it was too slow to reload, too long and just not suited for open fuild use. But in the hands of a sharp shooter, it was good out to as much as 300 yds meaning it was even out past the range of the canons. The Kentucky Rifle had nothing to do with Kentucky at all and wasn't something that anyone brought from home.

You misunderstand.
I agree it was the Kentucky Long Rifle, made in Pennsylvania, that made the difference.
And that was because civilians already were armed with them.
Washington used captures arms and French arms as well, but if the British had previously implemented gun control, clearly the revolution would have failed.
We must never make the mistake of allowing gun control prevent rebellion when necessary.
You are wrong when you say, "wasn't something that anyone brought from home".
All the Kentucky Long Rifles were brought from home.
There was no way to ramp up production that fast.
It was ONLY private rifle ownership that allow us to win the rebellion.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

Your figures are a bit off. The actual figure has hovered right around 40 to 44% for decades. Even though the numbers of guns had gone up, the percentage has stayed the same. Know that, repeat your statement.

Except that the lowest murder rates are before Prohibition, when the gun ownership rate was much higher than now.
It is obvious that the highest murder rates were caused by Prohibition and the War on Drugs, and have nothing at all to do with the ownership rates.

I will admit that during Prohibition, the gun homicide rates were slightly higher than before. In fact, they were almost exactly as they are now hovering right at 9.2 per 100K. But gun ownership was actually lower prior to prohibition and today was much lower. I can only speculate on the percentage of guns owned per capita since there are no real records. So my claim is as valid as any one else's. But it makes sense. Guns weren't that important to society at the time. The primary gun in the homes were shotguns and single shot rifles. Handguns were rare as they had almost no practical use and were just an added expense for the average person. Handguns didn't really effectively put meat on the table like shotguns and long guns. In fact, I doubt if the number of guns even came close per capita even in the prohibition than it does today. You can make all kinds of claims to that effect but there are no records to back it up either way until 1934.

I don't think so.

First of all, the vast majority of the population worked in agriculture back then, and did not live in cities. Therefore they would have no police, telephones, or automobiles. So then guns were essentially ubiquitous. I know this from direct discussions with relatives who were alive back then.
And what estimates I have seen from others, historic accounts, etc., all tend to agree that all households had the obligatory shotgun or rifle over the fireplace mantle, as well as more firearms for hunting and defense.
I have been in discussion with my parents who claim that elementary school students would take firearms with the to school, so that the might have the opportunity shoot dinner on the way home. The turn of the century was very poor on the farm in this country.
Guns were not only extremely important, but vital.
There was likely hardly a single family without at least one firearm.
The other means of verification that most US families were rural and armed, comes from stories of WWI, where the vast majority of US soldiers were already very familiar with firearms, and that is why they did so well in WWI. The Sargent York stories.
There is no way anyone would have lived in rural USA without a phone or car, and not be armed.
In fact, there were not even any significant number of police around the turn of the century.
And I think you are wrong about the number of pistols because anyone riding a horse would be much better off with a pistol than a bulky rifle.

You go ahead and think like that. The Movies agree with you. But I come from a family that first crossed the Mississippi in 1793. And yes, they went armed with a flintlock. During the time we are discussing, they lived on a Cattle/Sheep Ranch in the Rockies. They owned ONE shotgun and ONE single shot rifle for the family. Horses were the primary mode of transportation since there were no roads. In order to go any distance at all one took the Denver Rio Grande. Handguns were not owned since they had NO function.

The problem with something like the SA Colt or Remington, a Cowboy made a dollar a day and found. The cost of a SA Colt or Remington was about 30 dollars. 30 dollars doesn't sound like a lot but that would be equivalent to paying about 2000 bucks today for something you would have limited use for. If you are going to go for that kind of investment, the Rifle or Shotgun could be had for about the same of 30 bucks in those days and were many times more versatile. Even today, the Shotgun makes a better home defense weapon than the handgun. Just the racking of a pump action shotgun is a sound that makes everything come to a screeching halt.

 

[Rigby5]

What you are saying is, you can't prove your lie but I proved it was a lie. Thank you for verifying that.

When you prove something I will tell you that you did. Now what I did was force you to lie saying I lied.

Is that all you have to say? Keep trying to dribble that basket ball with no air.

You can't disprove because you can use a gun in self-defense without having to shoot it and if you don't shoot it, it doesn't get reported. but do keep trying

No, it is easy to disprove the claim there are not many defensive uses of firearms because we have other methods that don't require people reporting it.
We can conduct polls randomly, by telephone, or through selected groups.
We can conduct surveys at prisons, asking convicted criminals how often they were prevented by someone armed.
We can take the 1.1 million successful violent crimes each years, and extrapolate that there are about 3 to 4 failed attempts for every successful one.
We can use anecdotal experiences, such as I personally prevent a crime every 15 years or so, and would not have been able to do that unless armed.
Etc.

Some calls my house asking about guns I don't own any guns kills your argument

Not at all.
If you do not have any guns then that is properly recorded in the poll statistics.
But almost half the population is armed, likely even more in the country than the cities.

But I do have to wonder what you do when you discover someone trying to break into your car, garage, etc.?
Without a gun, it would be very risky to confront them.

 

[Rigby5]

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

Your figures are a bit off. The actual figure has hovered right around 40 to 44% for decades. Even though the numbers of guns had gone up, the percentage has stayed the same. Know that, repeat your statement.

Except that the lowest murder rates are before Prohibition, when the gun ownership rate was much higher than now.
It is obvious that the highest murder rates were caused by Prohibition and the War on Drugs, and have nothing at all to do with the ownership rates.

I will admit that during Prohibition, the gun homicide rates were slightly higher than before. In fact, they were almost exactly as they are now hovering right at 9.2 per 100K. But gun ownership was actually lower prior to prohibition and today was much lower. I can only speculate on the percentage of guns owned per capita since there are no real records. So my claim is as valid as any one else's. But it makes sense. Guns weren't that important to society at the time. The primary gun in the homes were shotguns and single shot rifles. Handguns were rare as they had almost no practical use and were just an added expense for the average person. Handguns didn't really effectively put meat on the table like shotguns and long guns. In fact, I doubt if the number of guns even came close per capita even in the prohibition than it does today. You can make all kinds of claims to that effect but there are no records to back it up either way until 1934.

I don't think so.

First of all, the vast majority of the population worked in agriculture back then, and did not live in cities. Therefore they would have no police, telephones, or automobiles. So then guns were essentially ubiquitous. I know this from direct discussions with relatives who were alive back then.
And what estimates I have seen from others, historic accounts, etc., all tend to agree that all households had the obligatory shotgun or rifle over the fireplace mantle, as well as more firearms for hunting and defense.
I have been in discussion with my parents who claim that elementary school students would take firearms with the to school, so that the might have the opportunity shoot dinner on the way home. The turn of the century was very poor on the farm in this country.
Guns were not only extremely important, but vital.
There was likely hardly a single family without at least one firearm.
The other means of verification that most US families were rural and armed, comes from stories of WWI, where the vast majority of US soldiers were already very familiar with firearms, and that is why they did so well in WWI. The Sargent York stories.
There is no way anyone would have lived in rural USA without a phone or car, and not be armed.
In fact, there were not even any significant number of police around the turn of the century.
And I think you are wrong about the number of pistols because anyone riding a horse would be much better off with a pistol than a bulky rifle.

You go ahead and think like that. The Movies agree with you. But I come from a family that first crossed the Mississippi in 1793. And yes, they went armed with a flintlock. During the time we are discussing, they lived on a Cattle/Sheep Ranch in the Rockies. They owned ONE shotgun and ONE single shot rifle for the family. Horses were the primary mode of transportation since there were no roads. In order to go any distance at all one took the Denver Rio Grande. Handguns were not owned since they had NO function.

The problem with something like the SA Colt or Remington, a Cowboy made a dollar a day and found. The cost of a SA Colt or Remington was about 30 dollars. 30 dollars doesn't sound like a lot but that would be equivalent to paying about 2000 bucks today for something you would have limited use for. If you are going to go for that kind of investment, the Rifle or Shotgun could be had for about the same of 30 bucks in those days and were many times more versatile. Even today, the Shotgun makes a better home defense weapon than the handgun. Just the racking of a pump action shotgun is a sound that makes everything come to a screeching halt.

Whats to argue?
You are agreeing with me that essentially all household had to be armed back before police, telephones, and cars.
And in reality, the need for firearms has not really changed, since police have way too long of a response time.

I agree a shotgun is a superior home defense weapon, if nothing else it won't accidentally travel as far through walls.
It just strikes me that cowboys would have wanted to travel lighter with a pistol, being on a horse all the time.
And after the Civil War, pistols were very cheap due to the surplus market.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Easy to answer.
Go back the the Revolutionary war, and the most massive weapons were cannon.
And who owned all the cannon in the revolutionary war?
It was private individuals.

Private individuals are ALWAYS more trustworthy than public figures because public figures are always working for pay.
That is why the founders were strongly against any large, mercenary, standing military, and instead wanted citizens soldiers.
The wisdom of that is even more obvious now, after war crimes by our own military, like Shock and Awe.

Not only must all weapons the military need be available to average individuals, but it is the military we need to lock up these weapons from.

Very good. Let's look at the times when the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights as well as the US Constitution was written.

Canons were private owned by the Rich. The common person could not afford a canon. That Canon would have fed and clothed his family for years. The Revolutionaries "borrowed" the canons and were expected to return them in good working condition or pay for their replacement after they won. It didn't really matter what year we are talking about. Canons are a rich person weapon. Those canons that are on display in town centers were donated by rich people.

Now, let's take a look at sidearms and longarms. In 1266 (the original 2nd amendment) swords were only owned by Kings and such. They were so expensive that the commoners could ill afford to own one. Yah, I know, in all those moves, you see everyone walking about with one on their hip but that's just the movies. Even in the 1600s when the English Bill of Rights was written. Governments and Rich had swords and such. Pretty much, if you were a private citizen with one, you were sponsored by a rich donor. But the Kings and such kept a supply in Armories in case of war. In case of War, they would meter them out so the new army could be trained, the new army would go to war. If they won, the army wasn't so new (nor so large anymore) and would come home, turn in their weapons and almost any other weapon they picked up (looted) to the armory and head home. If they did keep a sword as booty, they were allowed to take it home. The King knew that they sword wouldn't stay a sword for very long. It would be resmelted into useful things for the farmers and merchants. This is where the saying "Swords to Plowshares" comes from. It has a slightly different meaning today but in the 1600s and back, that's what it meant. The primary weapon of the day was a short bow and a dagger.

Enter the Firearms. Gearing up for the Revolutionary war, General George approached the newly formed Congress and wanted them to purchase a new gun. That gun would be the property of the newly formed America. They fought him tooth and nail. luckily, ol' George was quite persuasive. He got the new guns. The Muskets that the farmers who answered the call were laid aside for this new gun. It was the new gun with rifled barrels. Washington had them in his Armories and go them into the troops hands and got them trained in their uses. All of a sudden, that ragtag bunch of farmers became a fighting force. They went from losing battles to winning battles. Meanwhile, the English had only a handful of the new rifled barreled guns in their entire inventory and none were in the Colonies. The new Rifled Barrels meant that instead of trying to get within 40 yds for a guaranteed kill, you could get that same kill at 100yds and with a special person, it was possible to go out even over 250 yds. Although the British never really took the Colonials that seriously, even if they had I still think with the new weapon, Washington's forces would have prevailed. It was just a baby step in the revolution of guns but an important one. After the war, the newly formed Government didn't release those weapons to the Civilian population. They had the troops turn them in and then they placed them back into armories. The Rifle was still slightly out of reach for the common person. It was still a rich persons toy.

This is why, even into the early 20th century, if the civilian population were to even have a chance to go up against the local government the first thing they had to do was overrun the Armory for the weapons. Their primary weapon of the day was a single shot rifle and a shotgun. The Armory had the bolt actions and the Automatics along with some other nasty little surprises. One incident was made famous. I can't remember the location nor the date but I think at least one of you "Southern Boys" can help out there.

Because of these types of things, the weapons outgrowing mans ability to kill each other, the US had adopted a whole series of laws that ensures that the Federal Military will never be involved in a Civil War again. In order to get to a civil war, logistics and training has to happen and the civilian authorities will break it up long before that. So the US Military doesn't have a role. And the US Military is the ones with the really big, nasty weapons of war meant to combat the other nations with the other big and nasty weapons of war.

No, you got it wrong.

The lowering price of firearms from 1500 on is what ended the monarchies.
It is what made average individuals equal to the best trained soldiers.
The result was French and American Revolutions, which would otherwise not have been possible.
Firearms equate to democracy and individual rights.

And no, Washington had it wrong and wanted smooth bore muskets because they had a more rapid rate of fire, due to quicker reloads.

{...
Brown Bess
The "Brown Bess" muzzleloading smoothbore musket was one of the most commonly used weapons in the American Revolution. While this was a British weapon, it was used heavily by the revolutionary patriots. The musket was used to fire a single shot ball, or a cluster style shot which fired multiple projectiles giving the weapon a "shotgun" effect. There were two variations of the Brown Bess: the Short Land Pattern and the Long Land Pattern. The Short Land was shorter, less bulky, less heavy than the Long Land. Most American fighters implemented the Long Land Pattern.[1]

Charleville musket
Large numbers of Charleville Model 1763 and 1766 muskets were imported into the United States from France during the American Revolution, due in large part to the influence of Marquis de Lafayette.[6] The Charleville 1766 heavily influenced the design of the Springfield Musket of 1795.

American-made muskets
Many muskets were produced locally by various gunsmiths in the colonies, often reusing parts from other weapons. These are known as "Committee of Safety" muskets, as they were funded by the fledgling local government. Because of the need to produce as many weapons as quick as possible, and also out of fear of prosecution by the British government, many of the muskets did not bear a maker's mark. Some were simply marked as property of a state, or "US," or U:STATES," or "UNITED STATES." [2]

Long rifles
Long rifles were an American design of the 18th century, produced by individual German gunsmiths in Pennsylvania. Based on the Jäger rifle,[3] long rifles, known as "Pennsylvania Rifles", were used by snipers and light infantry throughout the Revolutionary War. The grooved barrel increased the range and accuracy by spinning a snugly fitted ball, giving an accurate range of 300 yards compared to 100 yards for smoothbore muskets. Drawbacks included the low rate of fire due to the complicated reloading process, the impossibility to fit it with a bayonet, the high cost, and lack of standardization that required extensive training with a particular rifle for a soldier to realize the weapon's full potential. Due to the drawbacks, George Washington argued for a limited role of rifles in the Colonial military, while Congress was more enthusiastic and authorized the raising of several companies of riflemen.[4] Long rifles played a significant part in the battles of Saratoga and New Orleans, where rifle units picked off officers to disrupt British command and control, but required support by units armed with smoothbore muskets or by artillery to prevent the riflemen from being overrun.
...}

List of infantry weapons in the American Revolution - Wikipedia

Most of the Revolutionary war was won with captured muskets or domestic Kentucky Long Rifles make and owned by civilians.

Whether expensive or not, clearly the whole democratic republic is greatly enhanced by an armed population.

I quoted American History. You quote Wiki. If you believe the Americans needed the English to make guns, you would be wrong. America had it's premiere gun makers all along. Plus the foundries and materials. The Kentucky Rifle (misleading name as it was produced in Pennsylvania) was ALL American. At the beginning of the war, both sides used British flintlocks. The British stuck with their Brown Bess while the French started providing the Americans with the French Charleville musket which loaded faster than the brown bess. But the Kentucky Rifle was only used for sniping as it was too slow to reload, too long and just not suited for open fuild use. But in the hands of a sharp shooter, it was good out to as much as 300 yds meaning it was even out past the range of the canons. The Kentucky Rifle had nothing to do with Kentucky at all and wasn't something that anyone brought from home.

You misunderstand.
I agree it was the Kentucky Long Rifle, made in Pennsylvania, that made the difference.
And that was because civilians already were armed with them.
Washington used captures arms and French arms as well, but if the British had previously implemented gun control, clearly the revolution would have failed.
We must never make the mistake of allowing gun control prevent rebellion when necessary.
You are wrong when you say, "wasn't something that anyone brought from home".
All the Kentucky Long Rifles were brought from home.
There was no way to ramp up production that fast.
It was ONLY private rifle ownership that allow us to win the rebellion.

Britain already did start gun control. But not for the tories. I can't remember which but there were two major battle fought over 2 different Colonial Armories that the British needed to seize. Before the real confiscation could start of the private arms, the war had already begun.

Again, the system has grown where a Revolution is impossible to accomplish. In today's information age, very quickly, the Government will learn about the logistics, training, supply, etc. and put a stop to it. It happens every so many years. And the Federal Military has safety feature built in that NO President can use them for a military takeover. Nor can any General do a Coup. It's time to put away that fiction book, turn off the TV, put away that Video Game and turn off the DVD.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

well regulated as expected in working order.
Not Congress shall regulate

A mere matter of interpretation.... convenient for rationalizing and enforcing nationwide gun-control law at the Federal level.

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

I think you need to start talking about the Constitution since the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it was printed on in a court of law.

How can you say that, since the Bill of Right ARE the first 10 amendments?
Are you claiming none of the Amendment count?
What about the 14th amendment?
Are we to claim slavery is legal now?

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

well regulated as expected in working order.
Not Congress shall regulate

A mere matter of interpretation.... convenient for rationalizing and enforcing nationwide gun-control law at the Federal level.

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

I think you need to start talking about the Constitution since the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it was printed on in a court of law.

How can you say that, since the Bill of Right ARE the first 10 amendments?
Are you claiming none of the Amendment count?
What about the 14th amendment?
Are we to claim slavery is legal now?

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

...Not all guns need to be removed. Just those that are causing the most body counts. It's called "Common Sense" which little is used in this discussion. One side says "Get rid of them all" and the other side says "You can't take my Toys". It's more like two adjoining monkey cages throwing feces at each other.

Hell, you want your assault rifle? Go ahead and keep it - once you jump through the new hoops required by new law that will eventually unfold. One per customer.

Nope, are not going to be any new gun laws.
The ex post facto concept prevents any new laws from effecting anyone, and with over 30 million assault weapons out there now, there is never going to be an Assault Weapons Ban.

There already are in 7 states and a bunch of Counties and Cities. And it looks like more are on the way. The States and below have the legal right to heavily regulate (notice, I didn't say ban) the AR into non existence.

I don't see how that can be legal?
First of all you can not make illegal what was legal and done in good faith.
Second is there is no logical or scientific basis for any AR ban, since it is not an exception weapon in any way.
Third is that it violates the 4th and 5th amendment to destroy businesses without compensation.
Forth is that people are not going to stand for it.
At the first confiscation attempt, there will be blood.
And those with ARs are going to win, not only because they are in greater number and better armed, but because the police and military will not cooperate with draconian gun control laws.

And you should not be on the wrong side like this either.
In the 1960s, I am proud to say that my main accomplishment was getting guns to Civil Rights groups so that KKK chapters could not just murder them all. They still kill some of them, like the 3 Freedom Riders, but few after the hundreds of defensive guns I was able to help provide. MLK Jr. was done from a distance, so defensive weapons could not save him.

Murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner - Wikipedia

{...
The murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner, also known as the Freedom Summer murders, the Mississippi civil rights workers' murders or the Mississippi Burning murders, involved three activists who were abducted and murdered in Neshoba County, Mississippi in June 1964 during the Civil Rights Movement. The victims were James Chaney from Meridian, Mississippi, and Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner from New York City. All three were associated with the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO) and its member organization the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). They had been working with the Freedom Summer campaign by attempting to register African Americans in Mississippi to vote. This registration effort was a part of contesting over 70 years of laws and practices that supported a systematic policy, begun by several states in 1890, of disenfranchisement of potential black voters.

The three men had traveled from Meridian, Mississippi, to the community of Longdale to talk with congregation members at a church that had been burned. The trio was thereafter arrested following a traffic stop outside Philadelphia, Mississippi for speeding, escorted to the local jail and held for a number of hours.[1] As the three left town in their car, they were followed by law enforcement and others. Before leaving Neshoba County their car was pulled over and all three were abducted, driven to another location, and shot at close range. The three men's bodies were then transported to an earthen dam where they were buried.[1]

The disappearance of the three men was initially investigated as a missing persons case. The civil rights workers' burnt-out car was found near a swamp three days after their disappearance.[2][3] An extensive search of the area was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), local and state authorities, and four hundred United States Navy sailors.[4] The three men's bodies were only discovered two months later thanks to a tip-off. During the investigation it emerged that members of the local White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Neshoba County Sheriff's Office and the Philadelphia, Mississippi Police Department were involved in the incident.[1]

The murder of the activists sparked national outrage and an extensive federal investigation, filed as Mississippi Burning(MIBURN), which later became the title of a 1988 film loosely based on the events. After the state government refused to prosecute, in 1967 the United States federal government charged 18 individuals with civil rights violations. Seven were convicted and received relatively minor sentences for their actions. Outrage over the activists' disappearances helped gain passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[5]

Forty-one years after the murders took place, one perpetrator, Edgar Ray Killen, was charged by the state of Mississippi for his part in the crimes. In 2005 he was convicted of three counts of manslaughter and was serving a 60 year sentence.[6] On June 20, 2016, federal and state authorities officially closed the case and dispensed with the possibility of further prosecution. Killen died in prison in January 2018.
...}

All that doesn't matter. If it is shown (and it has been) that the AR is the primary weapon used in high body count mass shootings then it can be heavily regulated (not banned). Now, it's done by Due Process of the Law. meaning, the States have that right but the Feds don't.

Then it has to be proven that the primary purpose of the AR is as a weapon of war and that's also been proven. I can use a wrench to hammer a nail in but that doesn't make it a hammer. Every once and design of the AR is for war. And it's pretty damned good at it. The best in the world. They keep looking for a replacement but keep falling short. Says loads for how good the original design is considering it's still the original design right down to the stock and mags.

Then when they do pass the law requiring regulating the AR, the have to specifically spell out that it's for the AR-15 and it's various clones. Just stating Assault Rifle won't cut it. The Law has to be specific. 7 states and numerous counties and cities already have that on the books and it's held up in courts.

The US doesn't have Gun Bans, we have Firearms Regulations. Put the book down.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

A mere matter of interpretation.... convenient for rationalizing and enforcing nationwide gun-control law at the Federal level.

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

I think you need to start talking about the Constitution since the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it was printed on in a court of law.

How can you say that, since the Bill of Right ARE the first 10 amendments?
Are you claiming none of the Amendment count?
What about the 14th amendment?
Are we to claim slavery is legal now?

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

 

[Rigby5]

Easy to answer.
Go back the the Revolutionary war, and the most massive weapons were cannon.
And who owned all the cannon in the revolutionary war?
It was private individuals.

Private individuals are ALWAYS more trustworthy than public figures because public figures are always working for pay.
That is why the founders were strongly against any large, mercenary, standing military, and instead wanted citizens soldiers.
The wisdom of that is even more obvious now, after war crimes by our own military, like Shock and Awe.

Not only must all weapons the military need be available to average individuals, but it is the military we need to lock up these weapons from.

Very good. Let's look at the times when the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights as well as the US Constitution was written.

Canons were private owned by the Rich. The common person could not afford a canon. That Canon would have fed and clothed his family for years. The Revolutionaries "borrowed" the canons and were expected to return them in good working condition or pay for their replacement after they won. It didn't really matter what year we are talking about. Canons are a rich person weapon. Those canons that are on display in town centers were donated by rich people.

Now, let's take a look at sidearms and longarms. In 1266 (the original 2nd amendment) swords were only owned by Kings and such. They were so expensive that the commoners could ill afford to own one. Yah, I know, in all those moves, you see everyone walking about with one on their hip but that's just the movies. Even in the 1600s when the English Bill of Rights was written. Governments and Rich had swords and such. Pretty much, if you were a private citizen with one, you were sponsored by a rich donor. But the Kings and such kept a supply in Armories in case of war. In case of War, they would meter them out so the new army could be trained, the new army would go to war. If they won, the army wasn't so new (nor so large anymore) and would come home, turn in their weapons and almost any other weapon they picked up (looted) to the armory and head home. If they did keep a sword as booty, they were allowed to take it home. The King knew that they sword wouldn't stay a sword for very long. It would be resmelted into useful things for the farmers and merchants. This is where the saying "Swords to Plowshares" comes from. It has a slightly different meaning today but in the 1600s and back, that's what it meant. The primary weapon of the day was a short bow and a dagger.

Enter the Firearms. Gearing up for the Revolutionary war, General George approached the newly formed Congress and wanted them to purchase a new gun. That gun would be the property of the newly formed America. They fought him tooth and nail. luckily, ol' George was quite persuasive. He got the new guns. The Muskets that the farmers who answered the call were laid aside for this new gun. It was the new gun with rifled barrels. Washington had them in his Armories and go them into the troops hands and got them trained in their uses. All of a sudden, that ragtag bunch of farmers became a fighting force. They went from losing battles to winning battles. Meanwhile, the English had only a handful of the new rifled barreled guns in their entire inventory and none were in the Colonies. The new Rifled Barrels meant that instead of trying to get within 40 yds for a guaranteed kill, you could get that same kill at 100yds and with a special person, it was possible to go out even over 250 yds. Although the British never really took the Colonials that seriously, even if they had I still think with the new weapon, Washington's forces would have prevailed. It was just a baby step in the revolution of guns but an important one. After the war, the newly formed Government didn't release those weapons to the Civilian population. They had the troops turn them in and then they placed them back into armories. The Rifle was still slightly out of reach for the common person. It was still a rich persons toy.

This is why, even into the early 20th century, if the civilian population were to even have a chance to go up against the local government the first thing they had to do was overrun the Armory for the weapons. Their primary weapon of the day was a single shot rifle and a shotgun. The Armory had the bolt actions and the Automatics along with some other nasty little surprises. One incident was made famous. I can't remember the location nor the date but I think at least one of you "Southern Boys" can help out there.

Because of these types of things, the weapons outgrowing mans ability to kill each other, the US had adopted a whole series of laws that ensures that the Federal Military will never be involved in a Civil War again. In order to get to a civil war, logistics and training has to happen and the civilian authorities will break it up long before that. So the US Military doesn't have a role. And the US Military is the ones with the really big, nasty weapons of war meant to combat the other nations with the other big and nasty weapons of war.

No, you got it wrong.

The lowering price of firearms from 1500 on is what ended the monarchies.
It is what made average individuals equal to the best trained soldiers.
The result was French and American Revolutions, which would otherwise not have been possible.
Firearms equate to democracy and individual rights.

And no, Washington had it wrong and wanted smooth bore muskets because they had a more rapid rate of fire, due to quicker reloads.

{...
Brown Bess
The "Brown Bess" muzzleloading smoothbore musket was one of the most commonly used weapons in the American Revolution. While this was a British weapon, it was used heavily by the revolutionary patriots. The musket was used to fire a single shot ball, or a cluster style shot which fired multiple projectiles giving the weapon a "shotgun" effect. There were two variations of the Brown Bess: the Short Land Pattern and the Long Land Pattern. The Short Land was shorter, less bulky, less heavy than the Long Land. Most American fighters implemented the Long Land Pattern.[1]

Charleville musket
Large numbers of Charleville Model 1763 and 1766 muskets were imported into the United States from France during the American Revolution, due in large part to the influence of Marquis de Lafayette.[6] The Charleville 1766 heavily influenced the design of the Springfield Musket of 1795.

American-made muskets
Many muskets were produced locally by various gunsmiths in the colonies, often reusing parts from other weapons. These are known as "Committee of Safety" muskets, as they were funded by the fledgling local government. Because of the need to produce as many weapons as quick as possible, and also out of fear of prosecution by the British government, many of the muskets did not bear a maker's mark. Some were simply marked as property of a state, or "US," or U:STATES," or "UNITED STATES." [2]

Long rifles
Long rifles were an American design of the 18th century, produced by individual German gunsmiths in Pennsylvania. Based on the Jäger rifle,[3] long rifles, known as "Pennsylvania Rifles", were used by snipers and light infantry throughout the Revolutionary War. The grooved barrel increased the range and accuracy by spinning a snugly fitted ball, giving an accurate range of 300 yards compared to 100 yards for smoothbore muskets. Drawbacks included the low rate of fire due to the complicated reloading process, the impossibility to fit it with a bayonet, the high cost, and lack of standardization that required extensive training with a particular rifle for a soldier to realize the weapon's full potential. Due to the drawbacks, George Washington argued for a limited role of rifles in the Colonial military, while Congress was more enthusiastic and authorized the raising of several companies of riflemen.[4] Long rifles played a significant part in the battles of Saratoga and New Orleans, where rifle units picked off officers to disrupt British command and control, but required support by units armed with smoothbore muskets or by artillery to prevent the riflemen from being overrun.
...}

List of infantry weapons in the American Revolution - Wikipedia

Most of the Revolutionary war was won with captured muskets or domestic Kentucky Long Rifles make and owned by civilians.

Whether expensive or not, clearly the whole democratic republic is greatly enhanced by an armed population.

I quoted American History. You quote Wiki. If you believe the Americans needed the English to make guns, you would be wrong. America had it's premiere gun makers all along. Plus the foundries and materials. The Kentucky Rifle (misleading name as it was produced in Pennsylvania) was ALL American. At the beginning of the war, both sides used British flintlocks. The British stuck with their Brown Bess while the French started providing the Americans with the French Charleville musket which loaded faster than the brown bess. But the Kentucky Rifle was only used for sniping as it was too slow to reload, too long and just not suited for open fuild use. But in the hands of a sharp shooter, it was good out to as much as 300 yds meaning it was even out past the range of the canons. The Kentucky Rifle had nothing to do with Kentucky at all and wasn't something that anyone brought from home.

You misunderstand.
I agree it was the Kentucky Long Rifle, made in Pennsylvania, that made the difference.
And that was because civilians already were armed with them.
Washington used captures arms and French arms as well, but if the British had previously implemented gun control, clearly the revolution would have failed.
We must never make the mistake of allowing gun control prevent rebellion when necessary.
You are wrong when you say, "wasn't something that anyone brought from home".
All the Kentucky Long Rifles were brought from home.
There was no way to ramp up production that fast.
It was ONLY private rifle ownership that allow us to win the rebellion.

Britain already did start gun control. But not for the tories. I can't remember which but there were two major battle fought over 2 different Colonial Armories that the British needed to seize. Before the real confiscation could start of the private arms, the war had already begun.

Again, the system has grown where a Revolution is impossible to accomplish. In today's information age, very quickly, the Government will learn about the logistics, training, supply, etc. and put a stop to it. It happens every so many years. And the Federal Military has safety feature built in that NO President can use them for a military takeover. Nor can any General do a Coup. It's time to put away that fiction book, turn off the TV, put away that Video Game and turn off the DVD.

I disagree.
First of all, the government clearly is way more corrupt that we should tolerate.
Not only did it lie about Iraqi WMD, but it tortured, and murdered half a million innocent Iraqis with Shock and Awe, which was a war crime.
Second is that revolution not only is more possible than ever, but inevitable.
Neither political party is anything but crooks.
An Assault Weapon Ban is all it would take, as the first confiscation would lead to blood, and then even the police would mutiny.
The War on Drugs already made the US with the highest incarceration rate in the world.
It is a disgrace.
We likely should have rebelled decades ago.
The government can not stop any underground rebellion because you do not have to organize training.
The population has been in training from the beginning.

 

[Rigby5]

well regulated as expected in working order.
Not Congress shall regulate

A mere matter of interpretation.... convenient for rationalizing and enforcing nationwide gun-control law at the Federal level.

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

I think you need to start talking about the Constitution since the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it was printed on in a court of law.

How can you say that, since the Bill of Right ARE the first 10 amendments?
Are you claiming none of the Amendment count?
What about the 14th amendment?
Are we to claim slavery is legal now?

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

That is totally untrue.
The states would not ratify at all until they had verbal assurances of the Bill of Rights being the first 10 amendments.
The fact the first 10 amendment were not officially ratified until after some states had signed on does not matter, because they had verbally already negotiated the Bill of Rights as being part of the deal.
The Bill of Rights absolutely has as much standing as any part of the Constitution or amendment.
It IS the first 10 amendments.

 

[Rigby5]

...Not all guns need to be removed. Just those that are causing the most body counts. It's called "Common Sense" which little is used in this discussion. One side says "Get rid of them all" and the other side says "You can't take my Toys". It's more like two adjoining monkey cages throwing feces at each other.

Hell, you want your assault rifle? Go ahead and keep it - once you jump through the new hoops required by new law that will eventually unfold. One per customer.

Nope, are not going to be any new gun laws.
The ex post facto concept prevents any new laws from effecting anyone, and with over 30 million assault weapons out there now, there is never going to be an Assault Weapons Ban.

There already are in 7 states and a bunch of Counties and Cities. And it looks like more are on the way. The States and below have the legal right to heavily regulate (notice, I didn't say ban) the AR into non existence.

I don't see how that can be legal?
First of all you can not make illegal what was legal and done in good faith.
Second is there is no logical or scientific basis for any AR ban, since it is not an exception weapon in any way.
Third is that it violates the 4th and 5th amendment to destroy businesses without compensation.
Forth is that people are not going to stand for it.
At the first confiscation attempt, there will be blood.
And those with ARs are going to win, not only because they are in greater number and better armed, but because the police and military will not cooperate with draconian gun control laws.

And you should not be on the wrong side like this either.
In the 1960s, I am proud to say that my main accomplishment was getting guns to Civil Rights groups so that KKK chapters could not just murder them all. They still kill some of them, like the 3 Freedom Riders, but few after the hundreds of defensive guns I was able to help provide. MLK Jr. was done from a distance, so defensive weapons could not save him.

Murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner - Wikipedia

{...
The murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner, also known as the Freedom Summer murders, the Mississippi civil rights workers' murders or the Mississippi Burning murders, involved three activists who were abducted and murdered in Neshoba County, Mississippi in June 1964 during the Civil Rights Movement. The victims were James Chaney from Meridian, Mississippi, and Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner from New York City. All three were associated with the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO) and its member organization the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). They had been working with the Freedom Summer campaign by attempting to register African Americans in Mississippi to vote. This registration effort was a part of contesting over 70 years of laws and practices that supported a systematic policy, begun by several states in 1890, of disenfranchisement of potential black voters.

The three men had traveled from Meridian, Mississippi, to the community of Longdale to talk with congregation members at a church that had been burned. The trio was thereafter arrested following a traffic stop outside Philadelphia, Mississippi for speeding, escorted to the local jail and held for a number of hours.[1] As the three left town in their car, they were followed by law enforcement and others. Before leaving Neshoba County their car was pulled over and all three were abducted, driven to another location, and shot at close range. The three men's bodies were then transported to an earthen dam where they were buried.[1]

The disappearance of the three men was initially investigated as a missing persons case. The civil rights workers' burnt-out car was found near a swamp three days after their disappearance.[2][3] An extensive search of the area was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), local and state authorities, and four hundred United States Navy sailors.[4] The three men's bodies were only discovered two months later thanks to a tip-off. During the investigation it emerged that members of the local White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Neshoba County Sheriff's Office and the Philadelphia, Mississippi Police Department were involved in the incident.[1]

The murder of the activists sparked national outrage and an extensive federal investigation, filed as Mississippi Burning(MIBURN), which later became the title of a 1988 film loosely based on the events. After the state government refused to prosecute, in 1967 the United States federal government charged 18 individuals with civil rights violations. Seven were convicted and received relatively minor sentences for their actions. Outrage over the activists' disappearances helped gain passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[5]

Forty-one years after the murders took place, one perpetrator, Edgar Ray Killen, was charged by the state of Mississippi for his part in the crimes. In 2005 he was convicted of three counts of manslaughter and was serving a 60 year sentence.[6] On June 20, 2016, federal and state authorities officially closed the case and dispensed with the possibility of further prosecution. Killen died in prison in January 2018.
...}

All that doesn't matter. If it is shown (and it has been) that the AR is the primary weapon used in high body count mass shootings then it can be heavily regulated (not banned). Now, it's done by Due Process of the Law. meaning, the States have that right but the Feds don't.

Then it has to be proven that the primary purpose of the AR is as a weapon of war and that's also been proven. I can use a wrench to hammer a nail in but that doesn't make it a hammer. Every once and design of the AR is for war. And it's pretty damned good at it. The best in the world. They keep looking for a replacement but keep falling short. Says loads for how good the original design is considering it's still the original design right down to the stock and mags.

Then when they do pass the law requiring regulating the AR, the have to specifically spell out that it's for the AR-15 and it's various clones. Just stating Assault Rifle won't cut it. The Law has to be specific. 7 states and numerous counties and cities already have that on the books and it's held up in courts.

The US doesn't have Gun Bans, we have Firearms Regulations. Put the book down.

It would be hard to fight if the states ban ARs, but it still can be.
That is because there is NOTHING exceptionally good about an AR.
There is nothing about it that is for war.
It is just light and weak.
It is not the best in the world, and actually is awful in my opinion.
The gas direst impingement tube easily clogs and can not be cleaned.
The bolt has 8 locking lugs, and any dirt can then easily bind it up so it won't turn.
Aluminum is a poor material for rifles, because it wears too fast.
The clocking lever need to be live.
The bullet is too small.
The FN FAL, the HK, the AK-74, etc., are all much better.

 

[Rigby5]

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

I think you need to start talking about the Constitution since the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it was printed on in a court of law.

How can you say that, since the Bill of Right ARE the first 10 amendments?
Are you claiming none of the Amendment count?
What about the 14th amendment?
Are we to claim slavery is legal now?

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

My favorite of the Bill of Rights is the first, freedom of speech.

List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment - Wikipedia

{...
Contents

• 1The establishment of religion
  • 1.1Standing to sue
  • 1.2Tax exemption to religious institutions
  • 1.3Legislative chaplains
  • 1.4Government-sponsored religious displays
  • 1.5Religion in public education
    • 1.5.1Prayer in public schools
    • 1.5.2Teaching of creationism in public schools
  • 1.6Governmental aid to church-related schools
  • 1.7Blue laws
  • 1.8Religious institution functioning as a government agency
  • 1.9Unequal government treatment of religious groups
• 2The free exercise of religion
  • 2.1Polygamy
  • 2.2Religion and the right to work
  • 2.3Religious tests for public service or benefits
  • 2.4Free exercise and free speech
  • 2.5Free exercise and public education
  • 2.6Free Exercise and public property
  • 2.7Solicitation by religious groups
  • 2.8Free exercise and eminent domain
  • 2.9Ritual sacrifice of animals
  • 2.10Government intervention in church controversies
• 3Freedom of speech
  • 3.1Sedition and imminent danger
  • 3.2False speech
  • 3.3Fighting words and the heckler's veto
  • 3.4Freedom of assembly and public forums
    • 3.4.1Time, place and manner
  • 3.5Symbolic speech
  • 3.6Compelled speech
    • 3.6.1Compelled subsidy for speech of others
    • 3.6.2Loyalty oaths and affirmations
  • 3.7School speech
  • 3.8Obscenity
    • 3.8.1Generally
    • 3.8.2As criminal offense
    • 3.8.3Search, seizure and forfeiture
    • 3.8.4Civil and administrative regulation
    • 3.8.5Internet
  • 3.9Government-funded speech
  • 3.10Speech by public employees
    • 3.10.1Political activity and Hatch Act of 1939
  • 3.11Commercial speech
  • 3.12Official retaliation
• 4Freedom of the press
  • 4.1Prior restraints and censorship
  • 4.2Privacy
  • 4.3Taxation and privileges
  • 4.4Defamation
  • 4.5Broadcast media
  • 4.6Government speech
• 5Freedom of association
• 6Right to petition

...}

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

I think you need to start talking about the Constitution since the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it was printed on in a court of law.

How can you say that, since the Bill of Right ARE the first 10 amendments?
Are you claiming none of the Amendment count?
What about the 14th amendment?
Are we to claim slavery is legal now?

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

The right to a fair and speedy trial

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think you need to start talking about the Constitution since the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it was printed on in a court of law.

How can you say that, since the Bill of Right ARE the first 10 amendments?
Are you claiming none of the Amendment count?
What about the 14th amendment?
Are we to claim slavery is legal now?

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

My favorite of the Bill of Rights is the first, freedom of speech.

List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment - Wikipedia

{...
Contents

• 1The establishment of religion
  • 1.1Standing to sue
  • 1.2Tax exemption to religious institutions
  • 1.3Legislative chaplains
  • 1.4Government-sponsored religious displays
  • 1.5Religion in public education
    • 1.5.1Prayer in public schools
    • 1.5.2Teaching of creationism in public schools
  • 1.6Governmental aid to church-related schools
  • 1.7Blue laws
  • 1.8Religious institution functioning as a government agency
  • 1.9Unequal government treatment of religious groups
• 2The free exercise of religion
  • 2.1Polygamy
  • 2.2Religion and the right to work
  • 2.3Religious tests for public service or benefits
  • 2.4Free exercise and free speech
  • 2.5Free exercise and public education
  • 2.6Free Exercise and public property
  • 2.7Solicitation by religious groups
  • 2.8Free exercise and eminent domain
  • 2.9Ritual sacrifice of animals
  • 2.10Government intervention in church controversies
• 3Freedom of speech
  • 3.1Sedition and imminent danger
  • 3.2False speech
  • 3.3Fighting words and the heckler's veto
  • 3.4Freedom of assembly and public forums
    • 3.4.1Time, place and manner
  • 3.5Symbolic speech
  • 3.6Compelled speech
    • 3.6.1Compelled subsidy for speech of others
    • 3.6.2Loyalty oaths and affirmations
  • 3.7School speech
  • 3.8Obscenity
    • 3.8.1Generally
    • 3.8.2As criminal offense
    • 3.8.3Search, seizure and forfeiture
    • 3.8.4Civil and administrative regulation
    • 3.8.5Internet
  • 3.9Government-funded speech
  • 3.10Speech by public employees
    • 3.10.1Political activity and Hatch Act of 1939
  • 3.11Commercial speech
  • 3.12Official retaliation
• 4Freedom of the press
  • 4.1Prior restraints and censorship
  • 4.2Privacy
  • 4.3Taxation and privileges
  • 4.4Defamation
  • 4.5Broadcast media
  • 4.6Government speech
• 5Freedom of association
• 6Right to petition

...}

Is this guy an American?

 

[westwall]

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

Your figures are a bit off. The actual figure has hovered right around 40 to 44% for decades. Even though the numbers of guns had gone up, the percentage has stayed the same. Know that, repeat your statement.

Except that the lowest murder rates are before Prohibition, when the gun ownership rate was much higher than now.
It is obvious that the highest murder rates were caused by Prohibition and the War on Drugs, and have nothing at all to do with the ownership rates.

I will admit that during Prohibition, the gun homicide rates were slightly higher than before. In fact, they were almost exactly as they are now hovering right at 9.2 per 100K. But gun ownership was actually lower prior to prohibition and today was much lower. I can only speculate on the percentage of guns owned per capita since there are no real records. So my claim is as valid as any one else's. But it makes sense. Guns weren't that important to society at the time. The primary gun in the homes were shotguns and single shot rifles. Handguns were rare as they had almost no practical use and were just an added expense for the average person. Handguns didn't really effectively put meat on the table like shotguns and long guns. In fact, I doubt if the number of guns even came close per capita even in the prohibition than it does today. You can make all kinds of claims to that effect but there are no records to back it up either way until 1934.

I don't think so.

First of all, the vast majority of the population worked in agriculture back then, and did not live in cities. Therefore they would have no police, telephones, or automobiles. So then guns were essentially ubiquitous. I know this from direct discussions with relatives who were alive back then.
And what estimates I have seen from others, historic accounts, etc., all tend to agree that all households had the obligatory shotgun or rifle over the fireplace mantle, as well as more firearms for hunting and defense.
I have been in discussion with my parents who claim that elementary school students would take firearms with the to school, so that the might have the opportunity shoot dinner on the way home. The turn of the century was very poor on the farm in this country.
Guns were not only extremely important, but vital.
There was likely hardly a single family without at least one firearm.
The other means of verification that most US families were rural and armed, comes from stories of WWI, where the vast majority of US soldiers were already very familiar with firearms, and that is why they did so well in WWI. The Sargent York stories.
There is no way anyone would have lived in rural USA without a phone or car, and not be armed.
In fact, there were not even any significant number of police around the turn of the century.
And I think you are wrong about the number of pistols because anyone riding a horse would be much better off with a pistol than a bulky rifle.

You go ahead and think like that. The Movies agree with you. But I come from a family that first crossed the Mississippi in 1793. And yes, they went armed with a flintlock. During the time we are discussing, they lived on a Cattle/Sheep Ranch in the Rockies. They owned ONE shotgun and ONE single shot rifle for the family. Horses were the primary mode of transportation since there were no roads. In order to go any distance at all one took the Denver Rio Grande. Handguns were not owned since they had NO function.

The problem with something like the SA Colt or Remington, a Cowboy made a dollar a day and found. The cost of a SA Colt or Remington was about 30 dollars. 30 dollars doesn't sound like a lot but that would be equivalent to paying about 2000 bucks today for something you would have limited use for. If you are going to go for that kind of investment, the Rifle or Shotgun could be had for about the same of 30 bucks in those days and were many times more versatile. Even today, the Shotgun makes a better home defense weapon than the handgun. Just the racking of a pump action shotgun is a sound that makes everything come to a screeching halt.

Quite literally hundreds of books and thousands of personal frontier accounts disagree with you.

I won't even bother to point out that in the frontier era you were either a "sheepman" or a "cattleman" (I suggest you look up Pleasant Valley War for the reason why) but your "family history " is extremely suspect.

But that aside, EVERY cowboy carried a handgun. If you lived in the frontier while the Native American population was still hostile, and you didn't carry your handgun, you were not going to survive.

There are historical plaques in a few places that describe the families who were wiped out. Were your claim factual there would be a lot more.

The fact that they are few and far between is evidence that handguns were carried. If you don't believe me travel to Edison Kansas where one of those plaques resides.

 

[westwall]

...Not all guns need to be removed. Just those that are causing the most body counts. It's called "Common Sense" which little is used in this discussion. One side says "Get rid of them all" and the other side says "You can't take my Toys". It's more like two adjoining monkey cages throwing feces at each other.

Hell, you want your assault rifle? Go ahead and keep it - once you jump through the new hoops required by new law that will eventually unfold. One per customer.

Nope, are not going to be any new gun laws.
The ex post facto concept prevents any new laws from effecting anyone, and with over 30 million assault weapons out there now, there is never going to be an Assault Weapons Ban.

There already are in 7 states and a bunch of Counties and Cities. And it looks like more are on the way. The States and below have the legal right to heavily regulate (notice, I didn't say ban) the AR into non existence.

I don't see how that can be legal?
First of all you can not make illegal what was legal and done in good faith.
Second is there is no logical or scientific basis for any AR ban, since it is not an exception weapon in any way.
Third is that it violates the 4th and 5th amendment to destroy businesses without compensation.
Forth is that people are not going to stand for it.
At the first confiscation attempt, there will be blood.
And those with ARs are going to win, not only because they are in greater number and better armed, but because the police and military will not cooperate with draconian gun control laws.

And you should not be on the wrong side like this either.
In the 1960s, I am proud to say that my main accomplishment was getting guns to Civil Rights groups so that KKK chapters could not just murder them all. They still kill some of them, like the 3 Freedom Riders, but few after the hundreds of defensive guns I was able to help provide. MLK Jr. was done from a distance, so defensive weapons could not save him.

Murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner - Wikipedia

{...
The murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner, also known as the Freedom Summer murders, the Mississippi civil rights workers' murders or the Mississippi Burning murders, involved three activists who were abducted and murdered in Neshoba County, Mississippi in June 1964 during the Civil Rights Movement. The victims were James Chaney from Meridian, Mississippi, and Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner from New York City. All three were associated with the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO) and its member organization the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). They had been working with the Freedom Summer campaign by attempting to register African Americans in Mississippi to vote. This registration effort was a part of contesting over 70 years of laws and practices that supported a systematic policy, begun by several states in 1890, of disenfranchisement of potential black voters.

The three men had traveled from Meridian, Mississippi, to the community of Longdale to talk with congregation members at a church that had been burned. The trio was thereafter arrested following a traffic stop outside Philadelphia, Mississippi for speeding, escorted to the local jail and held for a number of hours.[1] As the three left town in their car, they were followed by law enforcement and others. Before leaving Neshoba County their car was pulled over and all three were abducted, driven to another location, and shot at close range. The three men's bodies were then transported to an earthen dam where they were buried.[1]

The disappearance of the three men was initially investigated as a missing persons case. The civil rights workers' burnt-out car was found near a swamp three days after their disappearance.[2][3] An extensive search of the area was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), local and state authorities, and four hundred United States Navy sailors.[4] The three men's bodies were only discovered two months later thanks to a tip-off. During the investigation it emerged that members of the local White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Neshoba County Sheriff's Office and the Philadelphia, Mississippi Police Department were involved in the incident.[1]

The murder of the activists sparked national outrage and an extensive federal investigation, filed as Mississippi Burning(MIBURN), which later became the title of a 1988 film loosely based on the events. After the state government refused to prosecute, in 1967 the United States federal government charged 18 individuals with civil rights violations. Seven were convicted and received relatively minor sentences for their actions. Outrage over the activists' disappearances helped gain passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[5]

Forty-one years after the murders took place, one perpetrator, Edgar Ray Killen, was charged by the state of Mississippi for his part in the crimes. In 2005 he was convicted of three counts of manslaughter and was serving a 60 year sentence.[6] On June 20, 2016, federal and state authorities officially closed the case and dispensed with the possibility of further prosecution. Killen died in prison in January 2018.
...}

All that doesn't matter. If it is shown (and it has been) that the AR is the primary weapon used in high body count mass shootings then it can be heavily regulated (not banned). Now, it's done by Due Process of the Law. meaning, the States have that right but the Feds don't.

Then it has to be proven that the primary purpose of the AR is as a weapon of war and that's also been proven. I can use a wrench to hammer a nail in but that doesn't make it a hammer. Every once and design of the AR is for war. And it's pretty damned good at it. The best in the world. They keep looking for a replacement but keep falling short. Says loads for how good the original design is considering it's still the original design right down to the stock and mags.

Then when they do pass the law requiring regulating the AR, the have to specifically spell out that it's for the AR-15 and it's various clones. Just stating Assault Rifle won't cut it. The Law has to be specific. 7 states and numerous counties and cities already have that on the books and it's held up in courts.

The US doesn't have Gun Bans, we have Firearms Regulations. Put the book down.

The problem you have with that is one of the very few SCOTUS 2nd Amendment rulings specifically stipulates that weapons of military usage are the only ones that ARE protected by the 2nd.

 

[westwall]

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

I think you need to start talking about the Constitution since the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it was printed on in a court of law.

How can you say that, since the Bill of Right ARE the first 10 amendments?
Are you claiming none of the Amendment count?
What about the 14th amendment?
Are we to claim slavery is legal now?

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

US v Miller

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When you prove something I will tell you that you did. Now what I did was force you to lie saying I lied.

Is that all you have to say? Keep trying to dribble that basket ball with no air.

You can't disprove because you can use a gun in self-defense without having to shoot it and if you don't shoot it, it doesn't get reported. but do keep trying

No, it is easy to disprove the claim there are not many defensive uses of firearms because we have other methods that don't require people reporting it.
We can conduct polls randomly, by telephone, or through selected groups.
We can conduct surveys at prisons, asking convicted criminals how often they were prevented by someone armed.
We can take the 1.1 million successful violent crimes each years, and extrapolate that there are about 3 to 4 failed attempts for every successful one.
We can use anecdotal experiences, such as I personally prevent a crime every 15 years or so, and would not have been able to do that unless armed.
Etc.

Some calls my house asking about guns I don't own any guns kills your argument

Not at all.
If you do not have any guns then that is properly recorded in the poll statistics.
But almost half the population is armed, likely even more in the country than the cities.

But I do have to wonder what you do when you discover someone trying to break into your car, garage, etc.?
Without a gun, it would be very risky to confront them.

I confront them with a Lasermax red dot center mass

 

[Kondor3]

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

All governments have the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment, including the Federal government.

If you read the 2nd as it was intended for the day, it was meant to limit the Federal Government. Now, with that in mind, reread it.

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

well regulated as expected in working order.
Not Congress shall regulate

A mere matter of interpretation.... convenient for rationalizing and enforcing nationwide gun-control law at the Federal level.

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

Show us where the Bill of Rights prohibits Federal regulation of firearms.

Has anybody shown that to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?