The Right To Bear Arms

[KevinWestern]

Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons". I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.

I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.

Surely you will concede that while long barrel guns are used in the most heinous mass shootings, handguns with similar firing systems and high capacity clips are responsible for many of the shootings in urban and suburban areas, particularly by gangs and criminals in the drug trade.

Sure. To me, an “assault weapon” would be a fully automatic rifle (like the kind used in war).

I’ve had an extremely difficult time finding data on how frequently guns with magazines of greater than 10 rounds are used in homicides, so if you could help out it would be fascinating to analyze.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons". I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.

I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.

Surely you will concede that while long barrel guns are used in the most heinous mass shootings, handguns with similar firing systems and high capacity clips are responsible for many of the shootings in urban and suburban areas, particularly by gangs and criminals in the drug trade.

Sure. To me, an “assault weapon” would be a fully automatic rifle (like the kind used in war).

How many of these weapons, legally owned, have been used in crime?
Exactly zero.
Clearly indicating there is no reason to ban them.

 

[Nosmo King]

Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons". I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.

I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.

Surely you will concede that while long barrel guns are used in the most heinous mass shootings, handguns with similar firing systems and high capacity clips are responsible for many of the shootings in urban and suburban areas, particularly by gangs and criminals in the drug trade.

Sure. To me, an “assault weapon” would be a fully automatic rifle (like the kind used in war).

I’ve had an extremely difficult time finding data on how frequently guns with magazines of greater than 10 rounds are used in homicides, so if you could help out it would be fascinating to analyze.

.

Yeah. That problem was due to an amendment added by another NRA bought and paid for Senator that strictly prohibits funds from the gathering and dissemination of data on gun violence by any federal authority like the CDC. Seems that makes real study of the problem tougher and allows the gun lobby to sweep its complicity in gun violence under the rug.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would keep revolvers legal. Also pistols requiring the user to cock the action prior to shooting. The handguns that cause the grief and death and violence have no place on our streets. Perhaps such weapons belong in well regulated militias.

Aside from the fact that hanguns w/ hi-cap magazines are purposely designed for self-defense and so very much DO have a place in our homes and on our streets... It's unconstitutinal to ban handguns, period, especually those intended for self-defense.

Left unaddressed by you:
If that's your definition of 'assault wepon;, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'. Correct?

I reject the premise that handguns with semi automatic firing systems and high capacity clips are strictly defensive weapons.

You then argue from ignorance, dishonesty or both - given that you changed the term I used, it's likely both,.
Given that, you cannot possibly have a sound position in this regard.
Never mind the fact that banning handguns violates the constituion - period.

And I do support all efforts to ban assault weapons.

The bans curremntly under consideration do not ban 'assault weapons' as you define them. Why do you support those bans?

 

[bendog]

Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons". I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.

I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.

Surely you will concede that while long barrel guns are used in the most heinous mass shootings, handguns with similar firing systems and high capacity clips are responsible for many of the shootings in urban and suburban areas, particularly by gangs and criminals in the drug trade.

Sure. To me, an “assault weapon” would be a fully automatic rifle (like the kind used in war).

I’ve had an extremely difficult time finding data on how frequently guns with magazines of greater than 10 rounds are used in homicides, so if you could help out it would be fascinating to analyze.

.

Not to tread on your post (-: But, the capacity thing was part of my original point. I believe the gang weapon of choice is the semi-auto pistol. Sure, some .380 cal are less than ten capacity, but 9mm are nearly universally more than ten. That's why I agree, more or less, that magazine capacity is aimed at the Sandy Hook voters. But, it's not like they have no effect on urban killings. When urban gun violence is at its worst, it's with the stray rounds that miss the target and kill innocent children just walking around.

 

[Nosmo King]

Aside from the fact that hanguns w/ hi-cap magazines are purposely designed for self-defense and so very much DO have a place in our homes and on our streets... It's unconstitutinal to ban handguns, period, especually those intended for self-defense.

Left unaddressed by you:
If that's your definition of 'assault wepon;, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'. Correct?

I reject the premise that handguns with semi automatic firing systems and high capacity clips are strictly defensive weapons.

You then argue from ignorance, dishonesty or both - given you changed the term I used, its likely both,.
Given that, you cannot possibly have a sound position in this regard.
Never mind the fact that banning handguns violates the constituion - period.

And I do support all efforts to ban assault weapons.

The bans curremntly under consideration do not ban 'assault weapons' as you define them. Why do you support those bans?

I further reject your assumption that I argue from ignorance or dishonesty. If I agreed with you, I would not only have no standing in an honest debate, but I'd abandon all rational thought and stick my head in the sand to ignore gun violence while maintaining that guns are just too damn cool.

 

[Brain357]

Perhaps it's because suburbanites, and higher income ubran dwellers, fear their kids getting killed by crazies with "high capacity magazines" more than they fear a gang kid with a six gun. Perhaps that's not rational, but it's not rational for you to deny that all this gang violence isn't involving high capacity magazines. When I grew up a seven round .45 ACP was about as big as they came, so what else would one call a magazine that holds 13 and up 9mm.

Sure, suburbanites might not have to worry about gang violence – I understand – but isn’t the job of our gov’t and our President to see the big picture and go after the type of weapon that affects the most amount of people? Isn’t that common sense?

With a finite amount of time and resources, which gun type is more logical to pin as a “buzzword” in the news:

(A) “Assault Rifles” – ~40 deaths annually, has affected mostly wealthy communities in mass shootings
(B) Handguns – ~6,000 deaths annually, has affected mostly poor communities in acts of gang violence

Please let me know if I'm being unfair (and why), but isn’t it sort of a slap in the face to our nation’s poor that he chose to go with (A)?

It's like, "hey guys, we know you poor folks have been suffering thousands and thousands of deaths a year due to handgun violence, but we're going to instead focus on the 20 upper class people that died from an AR-15 first and try to ban that. We'll get to you later.."

I'm really not trying to be unfair here, this is just how I'm seeing this unfold. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

.

Didn't things start with background checks? I don't think I've heard him go after assault weapons more than hi cap magazines.

 

[Little-Acorn]

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says,

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

And it's as true and relevant today, as the day it was ratified.

 

[Nosmo King]

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says,

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

And it's as true and relevant today, as the day it was ratified.

"other such weapons"? Care to clarify?

 

[bendog]

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says,

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

And it's as true and relevant today, as the day it was ratified.

Actually, what it means today is .... since Americans have a right to defend themselves, the govt may not prevent them from owning and keeping firearms normally used for self defense in their homes (and I'm sure business's they own), and the gvot may allow them to carry weapons in other places so long as the govt treats all applications to do so the same ... i.e. no discrimination. And, I've no doubt we can take unloaded firearms to gun ranges and repair shops.

 

[Little-Acorn]

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says,

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

And it's as true and relevant today, as the day it was ratified.

Actually, what it means today is .... since Americans have a right to defend themselves, the govt may not prevent them from owning and keeping firearms normally used for self defense in their homes (and I'm sure business's they own), and the gvot may allow them to carry weapons in other places so long as the govt treats all applications to do so the same ... i.e. no discrimination. And, I've no doubt we can take unloaded firearms to gun ranges and repair shops.

That's humorous.

The reason for the 2nd amendment, of course, was that the people who wrote and ratified it thought the country would be better off if government has no say whatsoever, in whether ordinary citizens could own and carry guns and other such weapons. Hence its complete lack of any phrasing like "except as provided by law", or "except for reasonable restrictions" as other parts of the Constitution have.

The people who wrote and ratified it never thought the country would be PERFECT with this in place, of course. Simply that it would be BETTER than it would be if the government could restrict or take away your weapons.

 

[Nosmo King]

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says,

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

And it's as true and relevant today, as the day it was ratified.

Actually, what it means today is .... since Americans have a right to defend themselves, the govt may not prevent them from owning and keeping firearms normally used for self defense in their homes (and I'm sure business's they own), and the gvot may allow them to carry weapons in other places so long as the govt treats all applications to do so the same ... i.e. no discrimination. And, I've no doubt we can take unloaded firearms to gun ranges and repair shops.

That's humorous.

The reason for the 2nd amendment, of course, was that the people who wrote and ratified it thought the country would be better off if government has no say whatsoever, in whether ordinary citizens could own and carry guns and other such weapons. Hence its complete lack of any phrasing like "except as provided by law", or "except for reasonable restrictions" as other parts of the Constitution have.

The people who wrote and ratified it never thought the country would be PERFECT with this in place, of course. Simply that it would be BETTER than it would be if the government could restrict or take away your weapons.

Right up to 1861 when citizens armed with weapons of war rebelled against the United States of America and prosecuted a war that virtually ruined half of this nation. Those were state militias involved in the insurrection and rebellion.

 

[Spoonman]

there are no limitations in the 2nd amendment placed on either what you can own or how much you can own. the wording is very clear and implicit. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Nosmo King]

there are no limitations in the 2nd amendment placed on either what you can own or how much you can own. the wording is very clear and implicit. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

If the founding fathers could look beyond muzzle loading muskets into the future when dozens of rounds could be fired in a matter of a few seconds, would they have written the amendment to clearly define what "arms" are? If any and all firearms and weapons designed for war should be held by private citizens, would we be a safer nation? And if that's the case, wouldn't that apply to other nations around the globe? Would we need to worry about an Iranian nuclear bomb?

 

[Spoonman]

here is another fact. the number of guns in the USA grows greatly every year. every year there are more and more guns. but every year there are fewer and fewer homicides with a gun. today only .000036 guns in america causes a homicide. if you want to look at that number interms of what deadly assault style weapons cause it is .0000011. and the numbers are getting smaller every year. guns are not a problem. so called assault style weapons are not the problem.

 

[Little-Acorn]

there are no limitations in the 2nd amendment placed on either what you can own or how much you can own. the wording is very clear and implicit. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The only limitation mentioned in the 2nd amendment, is a limitation on government. It is forbidden to infringe on the people's right.

 

[Little-Acorn]

there are no limitations in the 2nd amendment placed on either what you can own or how much you can own. the wording is very clear and implicit. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

If the founding fathers could look beyond muzzle loading muskets into the future when dozens of rounds could be fired in a matter of a few seconds, would they have written the amendment to clearly define what "arms" are? If any and all firearms and weapons designed for war should be held by private citizens, would we be a safer nation? And if that's the case, wouldn't that apply to other nations around the globe? Would we need to worry about an Iranian nuclear bomb?

Isn't it cute how little nosmo keeps trying desperately to change the subject?

The government has no power whatsoever to take your or my gun away, or restrict our use or ownership of it.

Actually, that was true of the Federal govt even before the 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution, two years after the Const was ratified. All the 2nd really did, was extend that prohibition, to state and local governments too.

 

[Spoonman]

there are no limitations in the 2nd amendment placed on either what you can own or how much you can own. the wording is very clear and implicit. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

If the founding fathers could look beyond muzzle loading muskets into the future when dozens of rounds could be fired in a matter of a few seconds, would they have written the amendment to clearly define what "arms" are? If any and all firearms and weapons designed for war should be held by private citizens, would we be a safer nation? And if that's the case, wouldn't that apply to other nations around the globe? Would we need to worry about an Iranian nuclear bomb?

nosomo the founding father were looking well beyond a muzzle loader. the first machine gun was invented in 1718. long before the 2nd amendment was written. in 1777 the continental congress had and order out for 100 rapid fire rifles that utilized large capacity magazines and fired 20 shots in five seconds, what a so called deadly AR- 15 is capable of today. they well knew of advancing technologies. the point is the expectation was the public was to have access to the same technology available as the government. there were no limitations placed. the didn't have telephones back then either but free speech is still protected over air waves and phone lines. it is not limited because the technology didn't exist. they new then, as we know now, technology continues to change and develop. they were in the process of pushing the current envelope of technology to further improve weapons, their capacity, their rate of fire, even before they wrote the second amendment

 

[Little-Acorn]

nosomo the founding father were looking well beyond a muzzle loader. the first machine gun was invented in 1718. long before the 2nd amendment was written. in 1777 the continental congress had and order out for 100 rapid fire rifles that utilized large capacity magazines and fired 20 shots in five seconds, what a so called deadly AR- 15 is capable of today. they well knew of advancing technologies. the point is the expectation was the public was to have access to the same technology available as the government. there were no limitations placed. the didn't have telephones back then either but free speech is still protected over air waves and phone lines. it is not limited because the technology didn't exist. they new then, as we know now, technology continues to change and develop. they were in the process of pushing the current envelope of technology to further improve weapons, their capacity, their rate of fire, even before they wrote the second amendment

Little nosmo knows these things.

He's not interested in telling people the truth.

He's trying to get them to believe his diversions and lies.

 

[Nosmo King]

nosomo the founding father were looking well beyond a muzzle loader. the first machine gun was invented in 1718. long before the 2nd amendment was written. in 1777 the continental congress had and order out for 100 rapid fire rifles that utilized large capacity magazines and fired 20 shots in five seconds, what a so called deadly AR- 15 is capable of today. they well knew of advancing technologies. the point is the expectation was the public was to have access to the same technology available as the government. there were no limitations placed. the didn't have telephones back then either but free speech is still protected over air waves and phone lines. it is not limited because the technology didn't exist. they new then, as we know now, technology continues to change and develop. they were in the process of pushing the current envelope of technology to further improve weapons, their capacity, their rate of fire, even before they wrote the second amendment

Little nosmo knows these things.

He's not interested in telling people the truth.

He's trying to get them to believe his diversions and lies.

You have no real knowledge of me. Unlike spooman who does know me and argues from knowledge and facts, you simply make wild assumptions as to someone else's motivations and character. Which of the two of you do you think I have greater respect for?