Time to talk: Joe Scarborough on CNN; Michael Bloomberg at press conference.
I’m reaching out to our gun-rights advocates here, because I think you have some things to teach those people who aren’t. The reverse is also going to be true, but I think that what you have to teach is more straightforward: that is, what we’re talking about to begin with. We’re talking about guns; you know guns; you tell us what we’re talking about. I’ll be referring to gun-rights advocates by the term I have learned to use for them (although some people here may reject it: “RKBA” proponents. (The reference is to the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms.”)
Newtown has, according to at least a couple of U.S. Senators and Joe Scarborough so far, “changed everything.” (See this story from Think Progress for discussion on the point.) I don’t see why it logically should have done what Blacksburg, Tucson, Aurora, etc. did not — except that we really hate seeing little children murdered (a good thing for us to keep in mind in other contexts, by the way) — and I have some doubts about the sincerity and persistence of these conversations, but let’s take them at face value. After continual “now is not the time to talk” moments, it seems that maybe this is the time to talk — and I think that perhaps we’re less well-equipped to do so then we might think.
I’ve had enough conversations about the individual right to possess firearms over the past 6-1/2 years (dating back to my involvement in a U.S. Senate campaign in Nevada) that begin with a skeptical question over the term “assault weapon” to know that that’s a good place to begin. Our senior Senator is about to present the country with legislation on “assault weapons” — so … what’s an “assault weapon”? The answer I’ve gotten from Team RKBA is that there is no such thing as an “assault weapon” — and that suggests that this is therefore a good place to start defining terms.
Rather than a clear distinction between “assault weapons” and “other weapons,” RKBA activists have stressed to me that there are automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, single-shot weapons — we’ll want to make sure that everyone knows what these terms mean before we start throwing them around. Within these categories may be lots of overlap (small changes may convert a weapon from one category to another) as well as lots of distinctions (in terms of, for example, ability to fire large magazine clips, time taken to reload, and in general the amount of damage one can do in one second, ten seconds, a minute, three minutes, ten minutes, and so on. (I give a range of time so that among them we’re not simply talking about number of bullets fired per second, but also factoring in things like time, ease, and certainty of reloading.)
One thing that I think that those on the “gun control” (is there a better term out there as well?) side don’t know nearly as well as the RKBA side does is just what the Assault Weapons Ban that was in place between 1994-2004 actually did. From watching her on TV, Sen. Feinstein seems to know quite well and claims to have discerned important lessons from it — I’d like to see if we can all be on the same page there as well.
I could take it from there — but not as well as some of our RKBA commenters can. I invite them to put their thoughts on what gun control advocates don’t know relevant to the RKBA debate — I don’t mean opinions about constitutional arguments, I mean facts that ought to be inarguable — and I’ll put the most lucid of them up here. Then maybe we will be better prepared to talk.
One word of warning (which of course Vern can override): I’ve been very inclined towards inclusion when it has come to various comments in the previous items we’ve had about the Newtown shooting and the issues deriving from it. I’m going to be less inclusive here. If you can’t be on your best behavior, at least try to keep it above average.
That said: RKBA activists, what bothers you about what facts we on the gun control side generally don’t know?
Somebody else posed the issue as “gun safety” instead of “gun control”. I am looking forward to learn about the thecnical aspects of this debate. Is the Second Amendement interpreted solely as the right to bear single-shot muskets to form militias, as was the case when the Second Amendment was written, or as something much broader?
“Is the Second Amendement interpreted solely as the right to bear single-shot muskets to form militias, as was the case when the Second Amendment was written?”…………… Hmmmmmm
Why are you asking such a Stanley question if the amendment clearly refers to “arms” — any arms!
Obviously Forefathers knew about the technological progress in the weaponry and that is why they made this issue withstanding the test of the time.
So the word “arms” must be interpreted broadly.
According to your logic the 1st amendment does not apply to internet because there was no internet because there was no internet, cellphone, radio or TV.
Therefore, you must ask — why do we need 2nd amendment at all and why the Forefathers put it there?
Hint: Not for haunting rabbits.
Once you answer that question you will see what arms you may need today.
Hint: Same arms the freedom fighters are using against the government in the Syria?
If you want to intelligently debate this issue you must scratch my belly first and make me purr.
[Note: edits are in italics.]
OK Stanley, I did not do my homework :”The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home”
Source: Wikipedia.
As you can see I can’t intelligently disuse anything at this forum without Nelson and Diamond editing my language and purposely creating grammatical errors more than I can admit to.
No, it’s only me — and any random edit to one of your posts is likely to improve the grammar.
Both you and I are ESL people, so our grammar many times may be off. I don’t mind the editing, as long as the substance of the statements are preserved. Regarding the technological progress of the weaponry, the NY Post addresses this in today’s editorial page:
“Has technology rendered the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution obsolete?
That is, has the application of modern military design to civilian firearms produced a class of weapons too dangerous to be in general circulation?
We say: Yes.
…The Supreme Court in 2008 dispatched the notion that the 2nd Amendment applies only to members of “militias” — ruling that it indeed guarantees the right of individuals to own firearms for self-defense in federal jurisdictions.
Two years later, the court emphatically extended the concept to the states.
And then there’s the politics of guns.
There are enough privately owned firearms in America almost literally to arm every adult citizen.
And Adam Lanza’s rifle of choice — the M-16 knock-off Bushmaster — is insanely popular, just for starters.
Which underscores the fact that historically there is scant political will for weapons control. And it’s unlikely that there will be, once the Sandy Hook slaughter fades from the nation’s consciousness.
But that won’t negate the need for reform. Weapons designed expressly to kill human beings, and then modified (wink wink) to meet the federal machine-gun ban, have no legitimate place in American society.
Time to get rid of them.”
Keep in mind Stanley that the NY Post is a conservative publication.
Why are you asking such a Stanley question if the amendment clearly refers to “arms” — any arms!
So why is it prohibited for a citizen to possess nukes, stinger missiles, Apache helicopters, drones?
Are they not arms?
According to your logic the 1st amendment does not apply to internet because there was no internet because there was no internet, cellphone, radio or TV.
Only in a world of black and white thinking replete with special pleadings that you are about to unleash on the other arms.
*Stanley is quite right…..”Torches and Pitch-forks” would be considered “Arms” as well. Utilizing the famous Roman War Machines which could sling hot boiling oil and firesticks made of straw…would undoubted also be allowed by the founding fathers. Battering Rams? Absolutely! Slingshots as used by David ……with Goliath….of course would be included. Bow & Arrows, knives, swords, pikes…..also.
Probably worth noting that the repeating rifle (close cousin to the semi-automatic rifle) showed up on the scene not too long after the Framers approved the 2nd Amendment. The Civil War actually.
It’s also probably worth mentioning that the debate over if civilians should get a hold of one immediately ensued . . .
It’s not fair to paint a picture of muzzle loading long guns and big puffs of white smoke as the Framer’s intent of the 2nd amendment. The fact of the matter is that was state of the art technology for the time.
Anywho, back to the topic at hand– weapons of the type used in the tragedy last week are actually commonly owned. While a gross (and inappropriate– don’t write me letters) comparison, it’s sort of like asking if we restrict the public’s ability to buy a Mustang. No one needs a Mustang. You could get by with a Focus just fine. Speed kills. Forget the fact that 1.7 million Mustangs have been sold in the last decade . . . the .001% that are being used inappropriately are cause for concern.
Ridiculous comparison aside, this is a worthwhile topic for discussion. Personally, I do think we’re kidding ourselves if we really think that banning one type of firearm would have prevented any of the horribleness at Newtown. I don’t have a solution, but I’m willing to try anything other than nothing.
I am interested to know what you are willing to try. Obesity, smoking, also kills but we have taken steps to prevent their negative outcome. Would restricting the purchase of Bushmaster rifle used by Lanza, be a worthwhile attempt? I am aware of the Winship’s point, in their comment below, about the potential for an underground type of market for these arms, which poses another set of problems.
Glad you brought that up.
You don’t have an enumerated right to get fat or smoke, which makes regulating those activities . . . a little simpler.
I think your question has less to do with purchasing as it does to use, as the weapon in question wasn’t purchased by the murderer. So, what can we do to help ensure its lawful use?
I’ll have to defer to those with firearms experience. I don’t know if the answer is technology (preventing the weapon from firing), security (preventing unauthorized access to the weapon), procedure (mandatory education or public ad campaigns designed to correct behavior), or deterrent (do what you’re supposed to do or go to jail). Perhaps it’s a combination. Maybe you’ll get a good answer here, but it’s not going to be from me.
That said, let’s say, in our infinite brilliance, that our solution is indeed perfect. Would that have prevented the tragedy at Newtown?
Hang on — do you think that you have an enumerated right to eat at all? That’s not how rights work.
I do not think I have an enumerated right to eat, but that’s neither here nor there.
Enumerated rights? Made me have a Stanley’s type of reaction……hmmmm…
As I’m not familiar with this concept , I looked it up: “ Unenumerated rights are legal rights inferred from other legal rights that are officiated in a retrievable form codified by law institutions, such as in written constitutions, but are not themselves expressly coded or “enumerated” among the explicit writ of the law.”
Then I came across the conversation of a blogger with Akhil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale Law School. According to the reporter, professor Reed is one of the nation’s leading authorities on the Constitution. The professor says about the Second Amendment: “Instead of obsessing over the wording of the amendment, which doesn’t fit anymore, we need to talk about unenumerated rights in America,” …. “Having guns in homes for self protection is a very deep part of American culture. You couldn’t even get rid of those guns if you tried. It would make prohibition look like a day in the park. Today, almost everywhere in America you can have a gun in your home and that should be respected. But that doesn’t mean you need guns that can mow 26 people down. We can talk about reasonable regulation.”
A talk about reasonable regulation of this right is possible. I don’t expect that we will find a perfect solution, but it is possible, it shoudl be possible, to find policies that prevent or mitigate tragedies like Newtown.
“A talk about reasonable regulation of this right is possible. I don’t expect that we will find a perfect solution, but it is possible, it should be possible, to find policies that prevent or mitigate tragedies like Newtown.”
Agreed. However, coming up with new ways to control how guns are used likely only mitigates tragedies (still a worthy topic). I strongly doubt it will do much to prevent them. Prevention is a much harder conversation that has to do with our culture of care.
These members of congress took an oath to defend the constitution of the USA. And again they want to make and pass unconstitutional laws in a direct attack on the constitution they swore to defend.
They should be impeached.
Please explain to us what is unconstitutional about regulating the so-called “well regulated militia”?
Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms. The court’s 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller
The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments
It was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.
above is cut and paste. I can’t explain the law better than the Supreme Court , so go and read the decission that stuck down the unconstitutional laws.
Go
There is nothing in the Supreme Courts decisions that strips Congress or the States from regulating the KINDS of guns people can own. The Supreme Court has also affirmed the Brady Bill (after striking down just one of its provisions). It has affirmed Congress’ power to regulate the 2nd Amendment.
What you fail to see, Cook, is that this debate isn’t about whether or not you can own ANY kind of gun. It’s about the KINDS of guns, and the amounts of ammo, people may be permitted to own.
What did Justice Scalia’s opinion say about restrictions on that right?
What, are they trying to “regulate” our constitutionally-protected “well regulated militias?” Sounds pretty constitutional to me!
Oh, someone else just said that. Carry on.
According to the Constitution, members of Congress cannot be impeached. They can be voted out, though.
Likewise, the Constitution places the power to decide something to be unconstitutional in the hands of the SCOTUS.
So 0 for 2, there!
“One Senator, William Blount, in 1797. He was expelled by the Senate, which declined to try the impeachment.”
It has not yet been determined if members of congress are officers of the government or just pigs.
Thank you for that valuable contribution to the discussion!
I own a S & W .357 Magnum J-Frame, so that I can kill Mako sharks when I bring them up to the side of the boat. In that situation, I load hollow points into the revolver to make the biggest hole possible in the head of the shark.
The reason that I own that gun is to kill sharks.
You own a gun to kill things, or to practice killing things. The speed that you are able to kill things is determined by the type of gun that you are using.
A revolver is somewhat slow compared to the majority of guns owned by Americans, who prefer semi-automatics.
Let’s assume with both types of guns, that we start with a round in the chamber, and the hammer pulled back… and all that you need to do is pull the trigger to fire the round.
With a revolver, that gun fires, and to fire the next round, you need to either pull back the hammer, and then the trigger, or pull the trigger real hard to reload the next round and fire. Either way it takes some effort, and time to shoot multiple rounds. You usually have to reload after six shots have been fired.
With a semi-automatic, when you fire that first round, the exhaust gases from the fired round automatically reload the next round, and a slight amount of pull on the trigger fires the next round. And again, and again, until the clip runs out of ammunition. Much less effort to fire repeated rounds. When you have a huge clip, up to 33 rounds for a standard police issue Glock 17, you have potential for mass carnage. The Bushmaster AR-15 clips can hold 30 rounds.
A fully automatic weapon allows you to pull the trigger, and it keeps firing until you let go of the trigger, or it runs out of ammo.
Now there are many variations on that simplistic explanation, with single shot rifles, pump action shotguns, lever action rifles, etc., but the semi-automatic is what kills the most.
There is a lot of debate on what constitutes an “assault weapon,” and I don’t see how any gun could be considered anything less than an “assault weapon.”
What else do you use them for?
*As usual Demo is totally wrong. Had he ever heard a someone named Hinkley that fired 8 rounds in 3.5 seconds hitting the President of the United States, taking the top off the head of his Press Secretary and hiting an FBI agent and almost killling him? That was an 8 Eight Shot .22 snub nosed revolver that he purchased for $45 dollars. This was called a “Saturday Night Special”. This firearm was designed to basically “Rob Liquour Stores”. It was very effective for that purpose and was used and is still being used.
The main idea is simply…..every time you pull the trigger you expel a hot piece of lead….in some direction.
Demo obviously was not in the military and if he was….it was probaby mess duty in the Air Force.
No insults in this one, please.
Did Hinckley really get off 8 shots in 3.5 seconds with a Saturday Night Special? How fast was he ramming that trigger? And aren’t Saturday Night Specials illegal? I know that they may still be used even if so; just checking.
How much harm do you think that Lanza could have done to schoolkids if he had only been armed with Saturday Night Specials?
Don’t answer that last question. That’s not something a sane person should contemplate.
That gun, a RG14 22 caliber LR revolver, only holds 6 shots, so unless the Secret Service let him reload, he only fired 6 shots.
Maybe the Ships could give us a source for that story they just told us….unless that’s a first hand account.
22lr revolver 9 shot – TheFirearmsForum.Com
http://www.thefirearmsforum.com › Firearms › .22-Rimfire Forum
43 posts – 21 authors – Jun 10, 2009
22lr revolver 9 shot .22-Rimfire Forum. … I think the H&R break-opens were eight-shot. Smith and Wesson makes a ten-shot. I had a Sentinel …
Wikipedia…..
” Hinckley fired a Röhm RG-14 .22 cal.[18] blue steel revolver six times in 1.7 seconds.”
*Demo – Sadly, as the fastest gun in the west….even WE cannot fire 6 or eight shots in 1.7 seconds. Not even with a “rapper” liked they used on the Gattling Guns. 3.2 seconds can be accomplished manually….however. We will also stand by our eight round scenario..in spite of your protestations.
Made in Costa Mesa……http://bryco-jennings-jimenezarms.com/
Wow. OC truly is at the bottom of everything!
The Bushmaster .223 is rated at 6 rounds per second.
I’m sure that you still understand that basic math tells us that is faster than 8 rounds in 3.5 seconds (hint…it equals 2.2 rounds per second).
My father was a Naval Officer…so I served 18 years. I got PTSD, just no benefits.
*Demo – again…..how can you ridiculously pass on stupid info. Automatic weapons have a cyclic rate of 650 RPM – the famous Sten Gun…9MM of WW II had a cyclic rate of 250 rounds per minute on auto.
6 x 60 seconds……360 rounds per minute….on auto. Not Semi-Auto. If you are required to pull the trigger for each cartridge – you probably could get off 4 rounds a second in .223……but you probably wouldn’t hit much….
Modern Firearms – M16 M16A1 M16A2 M16A3
world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm
Armalite / Colt AR-15 / M16 M16A1 M16A2 M16A3 M16A4 assault rifle (USA) …Rate of fire, cyclic, 650 – 750 rounds per minute, 700 – 950 rounds per minute …
*With a 30 round clip……you could empty that puppy on Auto in less than 5 seconds. On Semi-Auto….it would take about 7 to 8 seconds..but your finger would be tired.
Nobody is talking about a fully automatic weapon.
The shooter used a semi-automatic.
Could you try to be more civil, and save the insults for another topic?
*Oh a Swabby son….”My father was a Naval Officer…so I served 18 years. I got PTSD, just no benefits.” The Great Santini Syndrome…
Sorry you had to go through that. We are now far more understanding. You really should buy “Last Detail” with Jack Nicholson. Truly is the best movie about the Navy ….we have ever seen.
No…Navy guys know about those giant guns….like anything above 20 MM. The .45 they carried were purely for looks. We will defer to your knowledge on the Battleship Missouri and such….but side arms and long arms …..are Army & Marine issues. For example: a .357 Magnum is nothing more than a puny .38 with a bunch more powder and recoil. Not anymore accurate and even Dirty Harry “downloaded” his .44 Magnum to reduce recoil.
OK Navy……we get it. Sorry you had to spend so much time in the Brig growing up. See “Last Detail”…it will change your life.
” I got PTSD, just no benefits.”
That’s an old joke….thought that you’d have heard that one.
I’ve seen all of those old movies, and none of them “changed my life.”
What I learned from living in a military family is that I didn’t want to be in the military. Less than 10% of Americans have been. That would make you the odd one.
The only debate is from people who fail to realize that there was an assault weapons ban, and it defined what constitutes an assault weapon.
As to why they claim ignorance is probably ideological. It sounded good when Hannity said it. And there was silence in response, because it was a radio show
It defined “assault weapon” piecemeal, not by a defining shared characteristic. Maybe there just is no such characteristic, which if so is a pretty good excuse. But then let’s not pretend that the grouping is much more than ad hoc.
*”Home Defense Firearms” vs. Assault Weapons? In the good old days, Grandpa kept his trusty 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded with 8 rounds in the tube. It was called a Winchester Model 12. The earlier model was called the Winchester 97. Someone broke into your house in the middle of the night…….and Grandpa could hit the hall closet pull out the shotgun and blast away. Whoever was there was going down hard. Doubt Ought Buckshot. Today, that very effective Home Defense Firearm has been replaced by a variety of Semi-Auto Shotguns……that can be fired almost as fast as the old pump action….but much more accuracy. Usually, these firearms hold a minimum of six rounds. The Shooter in Connecticut had one of these that he left in the car, outside the school.
OK, if you lived in downtown Santa Ana…..in very prevalent “Gang Country”….or in LA where drive-by shootings were a daily occurrance…..you probably wouldn’t want either a handgun or a shotgun. You would want a high capacity 20-30 round Semi-Auto Assault Firearm. It wouldn’t matter if it had a folding stock or looked like the ones that Seal Team Six carry on patrol. You just would need some stopping power when six or eight bad guys target your neighborhood, your home or the home of your mom and dad.
The maniac in Newtown…..had several very bad things going for him: (1) He was taking Ritalin or some other Psycho-tropic, Mood Altering Drug for his severe depression and paranoid mental condition. 2ndly, he was hooked on a heavy dose of Violent Video Gaming……like Tour of Duty 4 or some other equivalent. Falling into his own world…..he rejected what other people called reality….and finally he was captured by his mothers’ facination with firearms. A very bad cocktail…suitable for any disaster scenario you like.
Violent Video Games need to be Rated and Regulated. No one under 21 should be able to buy these things. The markings should be very prominent on the front of the packaging. MUST BE 21 TO PURCHASE. It doesn’t matter that someone can buy these games for 13 year old…..but what does matter is that Parents see and pay attention to what games their teenagers are playing.
Anyone taking Mood Altering Drugs not only should NOT be able to purchase ANY firearm….but any Violent Video Game. We are open to anyone with an idea on how
to regulate the Video Game Industry.
Finally, restricting Reserve Police Officers, Retired Military, Prior Service Military and Law Enforcement from purchasing any Home Defense Firearm seems ludicrous at best. Anyone, that is 21 years of age, 18 (if they have taken a State Approved Home Firearm Safety Course or Hunting Course – or have served in the Military or in authorized Scouting or Olympic Programs) should be able to buy, have and shoot any firearm they deem necessary for any purpose: Target Shooting, Competive Shooting, Hunting or Home Defense). The rumor of the day is that between 20,000 and 30,000 gun laws are currently on the books.
The easiest way to control those with mental disabilities from getting firearms is simply to have them identified through the DMV. The DMV highlights your license if you have had a DUI or Hit and Run on your record. It would seem a very easy thing to have the Mental Disability Professional simply earmarked you Drivers License….until you have been clinically “cured”. Then that designation could be removed and you would be able to purchase a firearm of any kind.
Assault Weapon Bans are very stupid. They simply raise the cost of the available firearms and the gun manufacturers makde “a killing”….no pun intended. Firearm high capacity clips can be obtained in 120 countries around the world. Stopping the import would be impossible. They will simply purchase them in Mexico and run them across the border. The bad guys will have the high capacity magazines and Grandpa will not.
“The easiest way to control those with mental disabilities from getting firearms is simply to have them identified through the DMV.”
And how would that scenario have stopped Adam Lanza from getting his hands on his Mother’s guns?
*Well, when you attempted to buy a firearm from a local gun store a few days before……the state troopers could have been contacted by the gun store! Pretty simple.
But that’s not what happened, is it? His Mother bought the guns, didn’t she?
So I ask again, how would your scenario have prevented Adam Lanza from getting his hands on his Mother’s guns?
Additionally, don’t you see how contradictory you appear in your expressed eagerness to regulate video games?
*OK…let’s talk turkey…..it ain’t the gun that killed little kids. Someone actually had to dutifully put on black body armor, load up an seemingly endless supply of 30 round magazines and break into a locked facility to kill.
Let’s start with facts:
“Autism Society – Asperger’s Syndrome
http://www.autism-society.org › About Autism
Asperger’s Disorder was first described in the 1940s by Viennese pediatrician Hans Asperger who observed autistic-like behaviors and difficulties with social …”
People with this syndrome are usually proscribed Ritalin…or some other mood altering meds. They can’t stand change of routine. It upsets them beyond belief. They in fact can go ballistic….if change is forced upon them.
The reports are that the Mom was going to move Adam out of the house and send him to a University far away. The reports are that the mom was going to sell the house and move somewhere else. The reports say that the Mom had a strong affinity for school…….. The reports say that the mom was shot in the head and face with 4 rounds. This shows incredible anger. Anger….that perhaps then was transferred into a previously planned revenge attack on the school.
Was Adam on Ritalin or some other psychotropic drug? The story continues but we hope that every detail will be revealed that occurred prior to the killing of the mother.
Thanks for getting back to the focus of this thread.
All of the pro gun people who argue that what we need is a better armed society to prevent this sort of tragedy are overlooking something. The shooter’s first victim had a lot of guns for “protection,” and they did her no good. She was in fact shot with one of her own guns. There are countless studies showing that that scenario is way more likely than someone actually shooting an intruder.
Guns in the house are just a bad idea. Having one the house makes you 16 times more likely to commit suicide, as that suicidal impulse is a fleeting thought. Gun accidents involving children are the result of guns in the house. What a tragedy for the parents to know that your kid killed themselves with their gun.
Think of the horror of that mom looking down the barrel of her own gun. Then it was too late to rethink the wisdom of having guns in the house.
*Growing up Dad kept his .38 Detective Special at the bedside. The .22 Sears Rifle in the closet. When mom and dad left for a three day trip…..was instructed to never touch the fireamrs unless I was being attacked. As a good child…that is exactly what happened. Parents teach their children or they they don’t. Obvisouly, Adams Mom had gone to bed and Adam had it all planned out a head of time. He wasn’t going to move to Washington or go to college or date the HomeComing Queen.
the constitution talks about the right to bear arms within the context of a well regulated militia and while that concept has been expanded so has the concept of what is meant by well regulated. nobody, other than the military and licensed zombie killers, needs a semi automatic weapon with a thirty round clip. if you want to kill sharks or elk, take a rifle with a scope and a ten round clip and go sit in the woods, or on your boat, and kill animals. but there is absolutely no rational argument for some suburbanite to keep an arsenal in the front closet
You’re right willie…..the home arsenal just shouldn’t be tolerated.
The NRA has been working diligently, hand in hand with the gun manufacturers to populate this country with more guns than people. They’ve done it by incrementally getting laws changed to allow inappropriate types of firearms to be bought and sold with little regard for the societal cost. This has been about big business…how many guns can we sell this year.
Let’s keep everybody fearful of the boogeyman, and keep them buying guns, and the bigger the better. If the criminals have a big gun then you need a bigger one…. If we have a gun problem, then the solution is more guns. If those teachers and kids all had guns, then it wouldn’t have happened……it’s all crazy.
We need to approach this on a wide variety of fronts. We need to dial back the firepower available at K-Mart, change the training requirements, work on the mental health problems, restrict who and where you can carry, and many other aspects.
The NRA has been a huge lobbying influence in DC, and they’ve written the laws that allows this insanity. The more guns that are sold, the more funding they get. It’s time to turn this around.
For many “own any kind of gun you want” advocates, that boogeyman is the United States Government. I’m seeing comments by these people about the size of guns that the Government has, about Ruby Ridge, about Waco.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that these people truly believe that the Government is just moments away from taking away every liberty you have and impose a totalitarian state.
So one of the issues that needs to be addressed is the degree of irrational fear and paranoia that is leading people to conclusions like that.
Do they think that they are going to get Blackhawk Helicopters so that they can stay on par with the military firepower?
More is not the answer.
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that many Hummer owners hold these beliefs.
*Demo – again so off. Right….you need your guns at a Government Approved Fun and Gun Club. Where…in case of emergency…they will be closed. You need your guns Locked up in Safe….each with an appropriate fail safe gun lock that may or may not work when you need it to.
“We need to approach this on a wide variety of fronts.” Absolutely….and one of them having parents take responsiblity for children with mental problems. No mental problems…..no problem.
Will repeat: You live on East 5th Street Santa Ana or 54th and Hoover in LA… Where do you want your gun again?
Then there’s Anon – “So one of the issues that needs to be addressed is the degree of irrational fear and paranoia that is leading people to conclusions like that.” In the words of Woody Allen….”Some say paranoid…others say perceptive!”
Anyway…..the fun part of this discussion is: How wrong you too bleedy heart “afraid of guns guys” …really are!.
I believe Demagogue has made it clear he’s not afraid of guns. Don’t you read?
As for myself, I’m not afraid of guns. Outside of the hands of a human being, they’re simply a hunk of metal. It’s people with guns like an AR that we have very real reason to be concerned about.
And who helps the parents that suffer from a mental problems like, oh, say, paranoia?
“the fun part of this discussion “……
Rambo Winship is one twisted guy to think that this is a fun discussion. Talking about how to prevent children being massacred at school. Real fun.
You live in a fantasy world where all of your heroes are matinee idols like Rambo, the Lone Ranger, John Wayne, and Dirty Harry.
We’re talking about peoples kids, and their teachers who were slaughtered wholesale, and you’re writing stuff that is false, and sinking to name calling with people that don’t agree with you.
Pathetic.
*Mom told us about people like you. She said: “You listen to what you want…in spite of the facts and never listen when things aren’t going your way!”
There are 27 schools in Orange County Bucko! Each one, after the recent School Board Meeting wants to put up fences, cameras and bring in Armed Guards to protect them. The typical over-zealous liberal re-action to a Tornado going through the neighborhood. Instead of hiring Dallas Reigns to just check on the weather.
The point is: Your need is to volunteer and start off by going out to Riverside and going door to door…picking up each persons firearms. All of them! Load them into your SUV and see have far you can get down the street before some pitt bull chases you and pulls you out of the car.
If you let your child….hide away in the cellar of your home…with nothing but gun posters and violent video games for 4 years….and then don’t give him his meds….and don’t do anything about it. We think that is criminal. If you believe that is Rambo-think….then so be it.
Are you still thinking that this is a “fun” discussion ?
There are 27 schools in Orange County, bucko?
School Shootings- Don’t Be a Victim- Active Shooter Survival Tactics
Get this in the hands of your teachers, some solid information in this 8 minute video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zBuFQMv-Go&feature=youtu.be
More at http://www.actcert.com
Attack Counter Measurers Training
What about when the students are 6 and 7 years old?
Hey Robert, I liked your link and think that this sort of problem has to be addressed on many different fronts, but like Anon said….
“What about when the students are 6 and 7 years old?”
Your link is certainly one piece of the puzzle, but I just hope that we are not descending into a world where this is how we have to be prepared to confront the day. We shouldn’t have to try and count 33 rounds being fired before we know the shooter has to change the clip.
We need to change the way that we think.
What’s striking is the willingness to accept a world where people show up to schools with ARs and 30 round clips. Accept it, and cope with it…there’s something very, very wrong with that mindset.
Some interesting data on the link between video games and gun violence;
“…video game consumption, based on international data, does not seem to correlate at all with an increase in gun violence.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-country-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-and-gun-murders/
*Anyone that thinks there is NO connection between aberrant behavior and video games only has to ask themselves ONE Question: When did you quit playing Solitaire on the Computer? Some can quit right off – and some are still hooked after more than 20 years! How about Angry Birds?
Well where is the data that supports your position?
I’ll also note that the study I cite above did not study the correlation between video games and “aberrant behavior.” It studied the correlation between video games and gun violence, which is much more germane to this discussion.
“Anyone that thinks there is NO connection between aberrant behavior and video games only has to ask themselves ONE Question: When did you quit playing Solitaire on the Computer?”
Seriously? Asking oneself that question leads one to a definitive conclusion on the connection between video games and gun violence?
Really? I don’t know whether to laugh or just shake my head.
*Just shake your head….that always helps!
Too late. I laughed.
I really want the Winships to read this.
Here is a link to what a normal response to a grade school massacre looks like. There is nothing “fun” about it.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/19/16008985-sending-sympathy-and-love-newtowns-agony-echoes-in-scottish-town?lite
The outcome of this all too familiar incident is this:
“The country reacted with revulsion and in 1997 laws were passed that essentially made private handgun ownership illegal throughout the United Kingdom. “
Yeah. Well, the only challenge with that is that when “any kind of gun you want to own” advocates like the Loseships see that sort of thing, they get all paranoid and think that we want to come and get ALL of their guns. So we have to be very careful about the language we use, and the policy goals we hope to achieve.
For me, the best we can hope for at this point in history is new regulations on the kinds of guns people are allowed to own. If we keep the debate on THAT level, people like the Loseships have a VERY difficult time, in the aftermath of Newtown, defending the right of people to own an AR.
Please — not “Loseships.” That’s an insult. You may call them the ‘Loosehips,” if you wish, because I expect that Ron is quite the dancer.
And The Grating Juan isn’t an insult? You don’t question that, do you?
I think Loseships is quite appropriate. They do, after all, tend to end up on the losing side of most of these debates.
“And The Grating Juan isn’t an insult? ”
As I recall, Diamond came up with that name.
Um… I’m pretty sure that was you, Dem. I always called him Grate One. Someone else had been calling him Not-so-great one.
Yeah dude, my recollection is Demo hatched the Grating Juan. Genius.
I’ll cop to the “Not-so-great-one”. Which I abandoned for the far superior “Grating Juan”. I mean, duh, no brainer.
I’m responsible for Juan……..I called him The Great Juan.
Diamond put it all together with Grating Juan.
And that was, I might say, oracular of you, not knowing at the time that the guy’s real name IS Juan.
The title of this post is …..”Let’s define our terms.”
The Winships are at one end of the spectrum, (I can own anything, and we need more people with guns to solve the gun problem), and the World News link above is at the other end, (where they say no more private handguns in the U.K.) because of a very similar incident as Newtown.
Right now the Ships have what they want. It would be nice if we could work towards something more in the middle.
Agreed.
*Look to yourself….and you will find that life as we know it on this carbon based planet…..has a function and design which is intended to raise the lifeform and create a wonder of wonders.
When you think about a world full of pain…you lose the concept. Think about a world where people actually understand, care and decide to take the best course…..for themselves and others. It really doesn’t hurt…you just have to take that first step.
Life is precious. Start with that premise and you and Anon will be able to figure out that too many folks out there are more worried about themselves than their children, their families or others in society. Hey,
we all can’t be John Lennon…..but riding that horse isn’t all bad.
Thanks Yoko.
Well the NRA held its presser and after promising “meaningful contributions” beforehand, simply pointed fingers at everything BUT guns. Not a single concession was offered, not even on something like the gun show loophole.
Could their position be any more cynical and entrenched, any less empathetic?
Judge Larry Alan Burns’ “Conservative Case for an Assault Weapons Ban.” Hat tip to Ricardo Toro, Michael Fox, and Lawrence O’ Donnell.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.
Loughner deserved his punishment. But during the sentencing, I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The ban wasn’t all that stringent — if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else — but at least it was something.
And it says something that half of the nation’s deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. It also says something that it has not even been two years since Loughner’s rampage, and already six mass shootings have been deadlier.
I am not a social scientist, and I know that very smart ones are divided on what to do about gun violence. But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them.
Bystanders got to Loughner and subdued him only after he emptied one 31-round magazine and was trying to load another. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, chose as his primary weapon a semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines. And we don’t even bother to call the 100-rounder that James Holmes is accused of emptying in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater a magazine — it is a drum. How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire?
I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the “mass” out of “mass shooting,” or at least make the perpetrator’s job a bit harder.
To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.
So what’s the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don’t let people who already have them keep them. Don’t let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don’t care whether it’s called gun control or a gun ban. I’m for it.
I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That’s why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.
I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left’s feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.
And I say it, finally, mindful of the arguments on the other side, at least as I understand them: that a high-capacity magazine is not that different from multiple smaller-capacity magazines; and that if we ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines one day, there’s a danger we would ban guns altogether the next, and your life might depend on you having one.
But if we can’t find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.
There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Gun enthusiasts can still have their venison chili, shoot for sport and competition, and make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are a part of the SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden.
It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action.
Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Larry Alan Burns is a federal district judge in San Diego.
Powerful stuff. I wonder if the NRA will hang him in effigy.
I have hard time with people who look to the NRA for a solution to domestic massacres.
Aren’t they part of the problem?
Okay, let’s stop the foolishness of what the Second Amendment is. It is NOT a right for any person to own any armament that want. That is NOT the right. Yes we can all read the recent GOP led SCOTUS decisions and see that they decided that the framers wanted us all to be fully armed, but let’s not listen to a court the sucks at the K-Street teat for a moment and let’s transport back to the actual debate about the Bill of Rights and see what Madison put forward and got turned into the “we get all the armaments we want” Second Amendment.
That is what Madison proposed on June 8, 1789. If it looks familiar it should since most of it is lifted pretty much from the Virginia Bill of Rights that he wrote.
But what happened in the debate over it. Did the members debate the right of an American to own some firearms, a group of firearms, unlimited arms? What did the debate happen over?
New Hampshire proposed the following:
Wow, that has nothing to do with types of firearms and or limits on the firearms. It looks as if they were against standing armies and wanted to ensire that “congress” could not disarm an armed people
What did New York have to say?
There seems to be a common thread that is starting to show up. It’s not about allowing the people to keep firearms per se, but it’s about the evils of a standing army at the federal level, and it looks like the founders are looking for a way to keep a trained military, but avoid a standing army. An always armed State militia that can not be disarmed by the federal power and responds to the States not the feds, unless time of war or insurrection at which time they may be called up by the Feds.
So what happens when these folk get together and talk some more?
On August 17, a motion by Gerry to insert “trained to arms” after the words “well regulate militia” failed for want of a second.
I don’t know about anyone else, but as I read the record it seems to me the the SCOTUS decided to ignore the actual debate that went on and has rewritten the meaning of the Second to meet the NRA (gun manufacturers lobbyist) needs. But let’s continue.
I think we can see why we are getting here. Now too many times I hear that the Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people, not the states. But it’s clear that the people and the states are considered one and the same in this case as the militia of the states is made up from the people.
By this point I think we can show a rather major historical tie between
1) There shall be no standing federal army
2) There shall be State militias
3) The people shall not be able to be disarmed by the feds so that they can serve in State militias
Now, anyone who is on the “Second Amendment says we can all have whatever arms we want” side wants to provide documented evidence to support their position from that time period from debates over the Bill of Rights in either the House or Senate, I would love to see it. In lue of any supporting documentation I will call any such interpretation of the second in that way “bull” since it can not be supported by the records of the debates.
So, if the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what the NRA (firearm manufacturers lobbying organization) says what it means, then we have to look at the 1903 Act the eliminated the State militias and ask if that is what we should have done. If not, then the 1903 act should be reversed.
Then we get to the founders fear of a standing army. The army is funded for only two years (per the Constitution), and should be disbanded in times of peace. On the other hand there is a constitutional case for a standing navy. So, if there is no case for a standing army, and we know that the founders had put in place the Second Amendment to avoid having a standing army, then why is the Federal government maintaining a standing army? All branches of the military should be disbanded, or we need an Amendment to the Constitution to have a standing military force outside the Navy.
One of the key reasons to have a standing military force in the navy was that there was skills training required. The same case could be made for the Air Force. That like navel ships there is a skill training required that it doesn’t make sense to have at the State level. But doesn’t the Navy have an air component? If so, does that necessitate a need for a separate air component for the Feds outside the air support from the Navy?
Lastly, If we are reviewing the constitutional purposes of a military then what is the constitutional purposes of military bases outside the United States and it’s vassals?
As for the concept that every person in the United States has a right to any firearm, is there no armament that a citizen can not have? Reading the Second the way that the NRA demands it be read means the answer is “No!” there are no limits of arms established by the Constitution, and therefore any arm is able to be owned by any person with the wherewithal to afford to purchase such armament. If we read the Second the way the NRA does, it means that there are no limits that the Federal government can put on any arms that any citizen wants to have.
Personally I think that is the debate we should be having. We should be defining what the Second Amendment really says, and then either determining that we will follow it (eliminate the 1903 Act and the standing army) or agreeing to the NRA interpretation of the Second and allowing any citizen to purchase and own any weapons that they so desire. If we agree that the Second Amendment means what it was debated as, then I would be very supportive of an effort to add another Amendment to the Constitution that seeks to achieve what the NRA seems to want the Second Amendment to say.
Now all the people that want to debate the issue can feel free to, but unless you can show documentation from the founders debates on the Bill of Rights that supports the current NRA claims (and I have looked and not found anything as strong as the claims that the debate was about standing army’s and militias, but I will be more than happy to be proven wrong) I think that the way to start this is to take the stand that the Second is currently not supportive of the “right to keep arms” with no militia requirement.
*There are just about 20,000 Firearm Laws on the books. Of those, every Automatic Firearm is regulated by the BATF. Without a Special License and 24 hour access to the firearm by the BATF…..you don’t get to buy one, keep one, shoot one or collect one. This law went on the books in 1932! It stands as is …today!
The Straw Man argument that the NRA allows or wants everyone to buy any kind of firearm they want is total bull pucky
.