***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[cstu]

Every public school should be a gun free zone.

Why?

Because outside of law enforcement, I don't want guns around my kids.

So you don't ever take them to restaurants, stores, town parks, or anywhere else?

If I had my way, those would all be gun free zones as well. But others disagree with me on this, so I don't get my way. My daughters spend several hours every day at school. That is very different from the few hours they spend per week in restaurants, stores, etc. So I'm going to have to insist that schools at the very least remain gun free.

I just don't get the idea that you want to prevent "the good guys" from defending against the bad guys, knowing that the bad guys will ignore the law. I would get the sentiment that you want to be damn sure that the good guys actually are the good guys (i.e. make the concealed carry requirements much more rigorous), but not the "prevent the good guys from helping" sentiment.

To me, the "good guys" are law enforcement. I trust the police to know what to do in these situations. I do not trust private citizens to know what to do. Not around my children.

What you seem to be saying is that there's no amount of training and certification that would allow you to trust a private citizen. That doesn't make sense to me, since there's nothing inherently magical about the police badge itself that makes them more trustworthy. You're placing your trust in the training and certification that goes along with the police badge. In that case, why not trust a private citizen who undergoes similar, or even identical, training and certification?

Theoretically, you're correct. Training and certification COULD allow for private citizens that I would trust to be around my kids. But I don't trust the pro-gun people to train themselves properly. Who's going to enforce it? Right now the pro-gun lobby fights vigorously against any kind of government-enforced certification. It seems that no matter how much we discuss this, the answer from some of you is more guns, more guns more guns! That's just not acceptable to me.

I thought the discussion was about things the government could do that would help. Obviously, the NRA wouldn't be writing the curriculum for training and certification. You are saying you trust the government to write that curriculum for law enforcement professionals, so shouldn't you trust it to write that curriculum for private citizens?

What is this obsession about having guns in school. It's like no one has ever heard of a
.

 

[Koya]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

I think what he's asking is what "arm" under the "right to bear arms" is too much? Unless you are ok with his statement then we are all agreeing there are some arms that private citizens shouldn't own. The question is then merely where the line is.

So I can "bear" a nuke now? You don't have to be so ####### outrageous.

OK, so we've established that there is a line...Where would you draw it?I am not trolling or inciting anything here, I am legitimately interested in the discussion

Sling, this is a very legit argument. I think we'd all agree that there shouldn't be a system that allows people to have nukes. Or say a loaded tank. Ground to rocket missles. Smaller missles. Live Grenades. Vehicle mounted large caliber guns. Heavy assult weapons. Assault weapons. Semi Automatics. Rifles. Handguns.It's a spectrum. Let's PLEASE have a legitimate conversation here. Where along that line is the 2nd amendment ok, and where is it not?That's part of what we need to discuss. It can't be all or nothing because I'll tell you, much as I am a huge fan of personal freedoms and rights, I surely don't want to live in a nation where everyone can have rocket launchers and nukes.

No one in the U.S. can own rockets or nukes. "Well regulated"...it's been regulated plenty. How far is it going to go? What's next after a mag restriction and AWB? Confiscation of all guns?The buck stops here. No more...not one inch of ground.

Not one inch? Really? Today of all days, that's your stance? For one, it's an utterly illegitimate bargaining position, if you want to call it that. One inch from what? It's not like you've given up all of these rights over the last 20 years and suddenly say OK THATS ENOUGH!If anything, someone on the opposing side of this discussion would say NOT ONE MORE INCH. Why? Because the laws as they exist today, which you seem to not want to give ANY leeway on, are obviously not working.And you say not one more inch? It's stubborn talk like that which, imo, most risks the long term strength of the 2nd amendment. And while you want it because of whatever your personal reasons may be, I want it without even owning an arm, because I do believe a well armed (but responsible) armed citizenry is critical for ensure freedom lasts. I do believe, in my heart, that gov't will tend to grow larger and stronger and infringe and to ensure power remains with the people, we will one day need an armed people.However, for the many years until then, the rights of innocents trump your right to certain weapons when such weapons enable too much death and harm.So please, don't say one more inch when we NEED to find a solution and stop more sandy hooks. And that may (may) mean some revisions to some gun laws. But let's not put lines in the sand where we won't look at all options and see which best balances EVERYONE'S right here.Otherwise, it's just being terribly selfish.

 

[Dvorak]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

I think what he's asking is what "arm" under the "right to bear arms" is too much? Unless you are ok with his statement then we are all agreeing there are some arms that private citizens shouldn't own. The question is then merely where the line is.

So I can "bear" a nuke now? You don't have to be so ####### outrageous.

OK, so we've established that there is a line...Where would you draw it?I am not trolling or inciting anything here, I am legitimately interested in the discussion

Sling, this is a very legit argument. I think we'd all agree that there shouldn't be a system that allows people to have nukes. Or say a loaded tank. Ground to rocket missles. Smaller missles. Live Grenades. Vehicle mounted large caliber guns. Heavy assult weapons. Assault weapons. Semi Automatics. Rifles. Handguns.It's a spectrum. Let's PLEASE have a legitimate conversation here. Where along that line is the 2nd amendment ok, and where is it not?That's part of what we need to discuss. It can't be all or nothing because I'll tell you, much as I am a huge fan of personal freedoms and rights, I surely don't want to live in a nation where everyone can have rocket launchers and nukes.

"Arms" = Man portable, discriminate weapon. Something a person can use to adequately defend themselves while discriminating between attackers and innocents.Nukes are not very discriminate. Same for most explosives (albeit on a smaller scale). Tanks are not exactly man portable.Machine guns are kind of a grey area as to how discriminate they are, so we regulate these. I'd like to see the 1986 manufacturing ban lifted to make them less outrageously expensive, but I can see the roots of the 1934 NFA.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

One more question.

If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?

How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

It wouldnt matter at all, as quite a few people can change an AR magazine in less than a second. Once the handle is charged an AR magazine change is very simple. Just one button and a slap against the bolt catch and your loaded again.

I think the number of people alive who could swap in a second or less, while moving and shooting at moving targets in an environment like that is probably pretty small. But let's assume you are right and they average one second per change. That's still an extra second happening 10 times, and a single second can easily be the difference between life and death for someone trying to escape a situation like that.

Doesn't matter. You can still do this with a handgun as well.

Sure, and dramatically fewer people would die.

Bull####. A handgun can be just as effective as a rifle, if not more in CQC.

I didn't catch that he was referring to using a high-capacity magazine. In that context I agree, and it's why I think we should effectively ban semi-automatic handguns as well.

Maybe you should move to the ####### UK?

Here's where I'm coming from this, and I'm a gun owner who actually worked for the NRA many years ago - If you just look at statistics where a gun is actually fired in defense cases, meaning someone is injured or killed and/or the police become involved, guns don't seem to net out much value. In other words, the number of those cases doesn't stack up well against accidental shootings, weapon used against the owner, suicide, etc. Much of the perceived defensive value of guns comes from the idea that there is a vast amount of unreported defensive activity taking place, where the gun is never fired but simply having it defended life and/or property. This has famously been reported to be as high as 2.5 million times per year.

I think the survey that particular estimate is based on is substantially flawed and suspect the real number is nowhere near that, but if you just fallow along with the logic it means that the added defensive value of the particular type of gun would be next to statistically invisible.

 

[Koya]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

I've got a stock 9mm that carries 18 rounds. If I add a magazine extension, I could easily carry 20 rounds. This whole debate shouldn't just be about certain types of guns because any gun can kill quite a few people in a very short amount of time with the exception of any weapon produced before the 20th century.

Exactly. I could kill quite a few people with my bolt action internal magazine Nagant that was made in 1943. It doesn't take long to throw in another 5 rounds with a clip.

Holy c***! The first, and quite possibly only, correct use of the word "clip" on the Internet in the last 7 days!

I use an en bloc clip for my M1 garand. But you are correct. Many people here have no business talking about gun control because they know nothing about guns. If you do not own a gun or have ever fired a gun, stay out of this conversation.

While I have fired a gun, I hardly know much about their safe use and specifics.But don't you dare say I have no right to be in this conversation... the fact is we are trying to balance rights here. Rights to own guns, and rights not to be threatened/hurt by them, if such an event could be prevented.Gun control is at least, and maybe more about those who don't own guns than those that do, but we all have an equal say in this discussion. Unless mass shootings will only occur to people who have owned or fired a gun.

I was pointing out the fact that many people here say restrict high capacity magazines, etc, etc but know nothing about guns themselves. I get that people want their rights and want to be safe from such weapons. Its like going into the hospital and telling the surgeon how to perform surgery without knowing anything about surgery itself.

People may not know the right terminology, however that shouldn't result in their not talking about the issue. Granted, would be better for us to all be more informed on the matter... but you don't need to know the specific definition of a clip to have legitimate concerns about assault rifles being in the hands of too many people who obviously should not have access to them.

 

[Slingblade]

One more question.

If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?

How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

It wouldnt matter at all, as quite a few people can change an AR magazine in less than a second. Once the handle is charged an AR magazine change is very simple. Just one button and a slap against the bolt catch and your loaded again.

I think the number of people alive who could swap in a second or less, while moving and shooting at moving targets in an environment like that is probably pretty small. But let's assume you are right and they average one second per change. That's still an extra second happening 10 times, and a single second can easily be the difference between life and death for someone trying to escape a situation like that.

Doesn't matter. You can still do this with a handgun as well.

Sure, and dramatically fewer people would die.

Bull####. A handgun can be just as effective as a rifle, if not more in CQC.

I didn't catch that he was referring to using a high-capacity magazine. In that context I agree, and it's why I think we should effectively ban semi-automatic handguns as well.

Maybe you should move to the ####### UK?

Here's where I'm coming from this, and I'm a gun owner who actually worked for the NRA many years ago - If you just look at statistics where a gun is actually fired in defense cases, meaning someone is injured or killed and/or the police become involved, guns don't seem to net out much value. In other words, the number of those cases doesn't stack up well against accidental shootings, weapon used against the owner, suicide, etc. Much of the perceived defensive value of guns comes from the idea that there is a vast amount of unreported defensive activity taking place, where the gun is never fired but simply having it defended life and/or property. This has famously been reported to be as high as 2.5 million times per year.

I think the survey that particular estimate is based on is substantially flawed and suspect the real number is nowhere near that, but if you just fallow along with the logic it means that the added defensive value of the particular type of gun would be next to statistically invisible.

You're talking to someone who has pulled their carry gun to save their life. Luckily I didn't have to fire also.

 

[Koya]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

I think what he's asking is what "arm" under the "right to bear arms" is too much? Unless you are ok with his statement then we are all agreeing there are some arms that private citizens shouldn't own. The question is then merely where the line is.

So I can "bear" a nuke now? You don't have to be so ####### outrageous.

OK, so we've established that there is a line...Where would you draw it?I am not trolling or inciting anything here, I am legitimately interested in the discussion

Sling, this is a very legit argument. I think we'd all agree that there shouldn't be a system that allows people to have nukes. Or say a loaded tank. Ground to rocket missles. Smaller missles. Live Grenades. Vehicle mounted large caliber guns. Heavy assult weapons. Assault weapons. Semi Automatics. Rifles. Handguns.It's a spectrum. Let's PLEASE have a legitimate conversation here. Where along that line is the 2nd amendment ok, and where is it not?That's part of what we need to discuss. It can't be all or nothing because I'll tell you, much as I am a huge fan of personal freedoms and rights, I surely don't want to live in a nation where everyone can have rocket launchers and nukes.

"Arms" = Man portable, discriminate weapon. Something a person can use to adequately defend themselves while discriminating between attackers and innocents.Nukes are not very discriminate. Same for most explosives (albeit on a smaller scale). Tanks are not exactly man portable.Machine guns are kind of a grey area as to how discriminate they are, so we regulate these. I'd like to see the 1986 manufacturing ban lifted to make them less outrageously expensive, but I can see the roots of the 1934 NFA.

Appreciate the definitions. Two thoughts: for one, definitions do not cover the issue of your right to own say an man portable discriminate weapon does not trump my right to, well, live. That said, your last statement seems interesting as I'd hardly say a machine gun is fully discriminate.And since there obviously needs to be some legit discussion on this, even though some extremists refuse to see that reality (and sadly, because we are talking about the freedom of people to not be killed here), maybe we can use your definitions, but tweak them. i.e., perhaps portable becomes handguns.... not saying that is the solution, but if you refuse to even begin to look at something (and its going not in the direction of allowing machine guns, but limiting to some degree what is already out there and how you can access them), I find that hard to believe considering the multiple events which have occurred of late.

 

[sporthenry]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Here's where I'm coming from this, and I'm a gun owner who actually worked for the NRA many years ago -

If you just look at statistics where a gun is actually fired in defense cases, meaning someone is injured or killed and/or the police become involved, guns don't seem to net out much value. In other words, the number of those cases doesn't stack up well against accidental shootings, weapon used against the owner, suicide, etc. Much of the perceived defensive value of guns comes from the idea that there is a vast amount of unreported defensive activity taking place, where the gun is never fired but simply having it defended life and/or property. This has famously been reported to be as high as 2.5 million times per year.

I think the survey that particular estimate is based on is substantially flawed and suspect the real number is nowhere near that, but if you just fallow along with the logic it means that the added defensive value of the particular type of gun would be next to statistically invisible.

You're talking to someone who has pulled their carry gun to save their life. Luckily I didn't have to fire also.

So what were you carrying, and do you think you were any any better protected than if you'd had, say, a small frame revolver?

 

[jafo]

I'd much rather defend my family with my AR-15 than a handgun or shotgun, its simply much more effective. A couple isolated cases where a rifle was used however to murder and everyone wants to bring back a ban. The statistics of these events happening are extremely low, in fact a handgun is used more often in cases of violence. Tell me why again all the hate for a semi automatic rifle? Is it because the media is currently focusing on that? Is it because it looks scarier? Is it because you are afraid?

 

[JHuber77]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

I've got a stock 9mm that carries 18 rounds. If I add a magazine extension, I could easily carry 20 rounds. This whole debate shouldn't just be about certain types of guns because any gun can kill quite a few people in a very short amount of time with the exception of any weapon produced before the 20th century.

Exactly. I could kill quite a few people with my bolt action internal magazine Nagant that was made in 1943. It doesn't take long to throw in another 5 rounds with a clip.

Holy c***! The first, and quite possibly only, correct use of the word "clip" on the Internet in the last 7 days!

I use an en bloc clip for my M1 garand. But you are correct. Many people here have no business talking about gun control because they know nothing about guns. If you do not own a gun or have ever fired a gun, stay out of this conversation.

While I have fired a gun, I hardly know much about their safe use and specifics.But don't you dare say I have no right to be in this conversation... the fact is we are trying to balance rights here. Rights to own guns, and rights not to be threatened/hurt by them, if such an event could be prevented.Gun control is at least, and maybe more about those who don't own guns than those that do, but we all have an equal say in this discussion. Unless mass shootings will only occur to people who have owned or fired a gun.

I was pointing out the fact that many people here say restrict high capacity magazines, etc, etc but know nothing about guns themselves. I get that people want their rights and want to be safe from such weapons. Its like going into the hospital and telling the surgeon how to perform surgery without knowing anything about surgery itself.

People may not know the right terminology, however that shouldn't result in their not talking about the issue. Granted, would be better for us to all be more informed on the matter... but you don't need to know the specific definition of a clip to have legitimate concerns about assault rifles being in the hands of too many people who obviously should not have access to them.

you missed the point again. Im not talking about terminology. I know what people are saying when they say clip or magazine. I'm just stating that people shouldn't tell others how to restrict firearms themselves if they know nothing about them. Laws can be enacted without changing anything about how firearms are used and still have an effect on whether or not someone goes into a school and shoots a bunch of innocent people.

 

[BassNBrew]

One more question.

If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?

How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

It would take a few seconds per mag change, so the extra changes involved would add up to an extra 20-30 seconds where people could get away and every second would count in that situation. Really, wouldn't one life saved in that situation be enough?

It wouldnt matter at all, as quite a few people can change an AR magazine in less than a second. Once the handle is charged an AR magazine change is very simple. Just one button and a slap against the bolt catch and your loaded again.

I think the number of people alive who could swap in a second or less, while moving and shooting at moving targets in an environment like that is probably pretty small. But let's assume you are right and they average one second per change. That's still an extra second happening 10 times, and a single second can easily be the difference between life and death for someone trying to escape a situation like that.

Doesn't matter. You can still do this with a handgun as well.

Sure, and dramatically fewer people would die.

Bull####. A handgun can be just as effective as a rifle, if not more in CQC.

I didn't catch that he was referring to using a high-capacity magazine. In that context I agree, and it's why I think we should effectively ban semi-automatic handguns as well.

Maybe you should move to the ####### UK?

Here's where I'm coming from this, and I'm a gun owner who actually worked for the NRA many years ago - If you just look at statistics where a gun is actually fired in defense cases, meaning someone is injured or killed and/or the police become involved, guns don't seem to net out much value. In other words, the number of those cases doesn't stack up well against accidental shootings, weapon used against the owner, suicide, etc. Much of the perceived defensive value of guns comes from the idea that there is a vast amount of unreported defensive activity taking place, where the gun is never fired but simply having it defended life and/or property. This has famously been reported to be as high as 2.5 million times per year.

I think the survey that particular estimate is based on is substantially flawed and suspect the real number is nowhere near that, but if you just fallow along with the logic it means that the added defensive value of the particular type of gun would be next to statistically invisible.

A of D - Curious about your response to the followingIn that equation, drop out all the people who are in the act of committing a pre-meditate crime, commit suicide, and especially the dumb arses that didn't know it was loaded and shot themselves in the foot. Basically what's the net value for the responsible person. I'm looking at this along the lines of alcohol. Some don't drink and drive, some do...we don't ban alcohol.

What are your thoughts on semi-autos and hunting? A majority of the shotguns are semis.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

I think what he's asking is what "arm" under the "right to bear arms" is too much? Unless you are ok with his statement then we are all agreeing there are some arms that private citizens shouldn't own. The question is then merely where the line is.

So I can "bear" a nuke now? You don't have to be so ####### outrageous.

OK, so we've established that there is a line...Where would you draw it?I am not trolling or inciting anything here, I am legitimately interested in the discussion

Obviously there is a difference in using an AR-15 to defend my family and using a nuke to defend them.

So where is the line?I truly think we can "control" gun use while still being 2nd Amendment compliant...But if opponents are that intractable, citing merely "Second Amendment, Second Amendment" then this tragedy will be one more opportunity missed

 

[JHuber77]

Here's where I'm coming from this, and I'm a gun owner who actually worked for the NRA many years ago -

If you just look at statistics where a gun is actually fired in defense cases, meaning someone is injured or killed and/or the police become involved, guns don't seem to net out much value. In other words, the number of those cases doesn't stack up well against accidental shootings, weapon used against the owner, suicide, etc. Much of the perceived defensive value of guns comes from the idea that there is a vast amount of unreported defensive activity taking place, where the gun is never fired but simply having it defended life and/or property. This has famously been reported to be as high as 2.5 million times per year.

I think the survey that particular estimate is based on is substantially flawed and suspect the real number is nowhere near that, but if you just fallow along with the logic it means that the added defensive value of the particular type of gun would be next to statistically invisible.

You're talking to someone who has pulled their carry gun to save their life. Luckily I didn't have to fire also.

So what were you carrying, and do you think you were any any better protected than if you'd had, say, a small frame revolver?

A handgun is simply a transition to a long gun.

 

[Slingblade]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are.

Tactical vest.

 

[Dvorak]

"Arms" = Man portable, discriminate weapon. Something a person can use to adequately defend themselves while discriminating between attackers and innocents.Nukes are not very discriminate. Same for most explosives (albeit on a smaller scale). Tanks are not exactly man portable.Machine guns are kind of a grey area as to how discriminate they are, so we regulate these. I'd like to see the 1986 manufacturing ban lifted to make them less outrageously expensive, but I can see the roots of the 1934 NFA.

Appreciate the definitions. Two thoughts: for one, definitions do not cover the issue of your right to own say an man portable discriminate weapon does not trump my right to, well, live. That said, your last statement seems interesting as I'd hardly say a machine gun is fully discriminate.And since there obviously needs to be some legit discussion on this, even though some extremists refuse to see that reality (and sadly, because we are talking about the freedom of people to not be killed here), maybe we can use your definitions, but tweak them. i.e., perhaps portable becomes handguns.... not saying that is the solution, but if you refuse to even begin to look at something (and its going not in the direction of allowing machine guns, but limiting to some degree what is already out there and how you can access them), I find that hard to believe considering the multiple events which have occurred of late.

Not sure your point about your right to live trumping my right to self-defense? If you are attacking me your right to live just became moot. That's where the discriminate part comes in. You attack me, I am allowed to stop you. I can't blow up my neighbor's house in the process.And I am not claiming machine guns are discriminate, that is why I separated it out and tried to explain why I am, for the most part, okay with the restrictions placed on them.

 

[Slingblade]

Here's where I'm coming from this, and I'm a gun owner who actually worked for the NRA many years ago -

If you just look at statistics where a gun is actually fired in defense cases, meaning someone is injured or killed and/or the police become involved, guns don't seem to net out much value. In other words, the number of those cases doesn't stack up well against accidental shootings, weapon used against the owner, suicide, etc. Much of the perceived defensive value of guns comes from the idea that there is a vast amount of unreported defensive activity taking place, where the gun is never fired but simply having it defended life and/or property. This has famously been reported to be as high as 2.5 million times per year.

I think the survey that particular estimate is based on is substantially flawed and suspect the real number is nowhere near that, but if you just fallow along with the logic it means that the added defensive value of the particular type of gun would be next to statistically invisible.

You're talking to someone who has pulled their carry gun to save their life. Luckily I didn't have to fire also.

So what were you carrying, and do you think you were any any better protected than if you'd had, say, a small frame revolver?

My glock 19. Probably the same, but if they would of said #### it, 6 rounds would not have been enough more than likely.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

I think what he's asking is what "arm" under the "right to bear arms" is too much? Unless you are ok with his statement then we are all agreeing there are some arms that private citizens shouldn't own. The question is then merely where the line is.

So I can "bear" a nuke now? You don't have to be so ####### outrageous.

OK, so we've established that there is a line...Where would you draw it?I am not trolling or inciting anything here, I am legitimately interested in the discussion

Sling, this is a very legit argument. I think we'd all agree that there shouldn't be a system that allows people to have nukes. Or say a loaded tank. Ground to rocket missles. Smaller missles. Live Grenades. Vehicle mounted large caliber guns. Heavy assult weapons. Assault weapons. Semi Automatics. Rifles. Handguns.It's a spectrum. Let's PLEASE have a legitimate conversation here. Where along that line is the 2nd amendment ok, and where is it not?That's part of what we need to discuss. It can't be all or nothing because I'll tell you, much as I am a huge fan of personal freedoms and rights, I surely don't want to live in a nation where everyone can have rocket launchers and nukes.

No one in the U.S. can own rockets or nukes. "Well regulated"...it's been regulated plenty. How far is it going to go? What's next after a mag restriction and AWB? Confiscation of all guns?The buck stops here. No more...not one inch of ground.

What word does "well regulated" modify in the text of the US Constitution?

 

[JHuber77]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are.

 

[Slingblade]

No, it really isn't

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

I think what he's asking is what "arm" under the "right to bear arms" is too much? Unless you are ok with his statement then we are all agreeing there are some arms that private citizens shouldn't own. The question is then merely where the line is.

So I can "bear" a nuke now? You don't have to be so ####### outrageous.

OK, so we've established that there is a line...Where would you draw it?I am not trolling or inciting anything here, I am legitimately interested in the discussion

Sling, this is a very legit argument. I think we'd all agree that there shouldn't be a system that allows people to have nukes. Or say a loaded tank. Ground to rocket missles. Smaller missles. Live Grenades. Vehicle mounted large caliber guns. Heavy assult weapons. Assault weapons. Semi Automatics. Rifles. Handguns.It's a spectrum. Let's PLEASE have a legitimate conversation here. Where along that line is the 2nd amendment ok, and where is it not?That's part of what we need to discuss. It can't be all or nothing because I'll tell you, much as I am a huge fan of personal freedoms and rights, I surely don't want to live in a nation where everyone can have rocket launchers and nukes.

No one in the U.S. can own rockets or nukes. "Well regulated"...it's been regulated plenty. How far is it going to go? What's next after a mag restriction and AWB? Confiscation of all guns?The buck stops here. No more...not one inch of ground.

What word does "well regulated" modify in the text of the US Constitution?

A force composed of ordinary citizens.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Here's where I'm coming from this, and I'm a gun owner who actually worked for the NRA many years ago -

If you just look at statistics where a gun is actually fired in defense cases, meaning someone is injured or killed and/or the police become involved, guns don't seem to net out much value. In other words, the number of those cases doesn't stack up well against accidental shootings, weapon used against the owner, suicide, etc. Much of the perceived defensive value of guns comes from the idea that there is a vast amount of unreported defensive activity taking place, where the gun is never fired but simply having it defended life and/or property. This has famously been reported to be as high as 2.5 million times per year.

I think the survey that particular estimate is based on is substantially flawed and suspect the real number is nowhere near that, but if you just fallow along with the logic it means that the added defensive value of the particular type of gun would be next to statistically invisible.

A of D - Curious about your response to the followingIn that equation, drop out all the people who are in the act of committing a pre-meditate crime, commit suicide, and especially the dumb arses that didn't know it was loaded and shot themselves in the foot. Basically what's the net value for the responsible person. I'm looking at this along the lines of alcohol. Some don't drink and drive, some do...we don't ban alcohol.

What are your thoughts on semi-autos and hunting? A majority of the shotguns are semis.

I more or less agree with the alcohol analogy, but I'm not in any way saying we should ban all guns. Just looking for where there is a reasonable line between legitimate defensive and recreational value vs. just adding the ability to kill in large volumes. I'm not a hunter, and don't know too many any more. I do know that many popular hunting rifles are still bolt or lever action.

 

[fochs13]

With 300 million people in the US, it is really amazing that situations like Sandy Hook don't happen more often.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

Honest question...Do you think I should constitutionally allowed to own a nuclear weapon?

You're hilarious.

I think what he's asking is what "arm" under the "right to bear arms" is too much? Unless you are ok with his statement then we are all agreeing there are some arms that private citizens shouldn't own. The question is then merely where the line is.

So I can "bear" a nuke now? You don't have to be so ####### outrageous.

OK, so we've established that there is a line...Where would you draw it?I am not trolling or inciting anything here, I am legitimately interested in the discussion

Sling, this is a very legit argument. I think we'd all agree that there shouldn't be a system that allows people to have nukes. Or say a loaded tank. Ground to rocket missles. Smaller missles. Live Grenades. Vehicle mounted large caliber guns. Heavy assult weapons. Assault weapons. Semi Automatics. Rifles. Handguns.It's a spectrum. Let's PLEASE have a legitimate conversation here. Where along that line is the 2nd amendment ok, and where is it not?That's part of what we need to discuss. It can't be all or nothing because I'll tell you, much as I am a huge fan of personal freedoms and rights, I surely don't want to live in a nation where everyone can have rocket launchers and nukes.

No one in the U.S. can own rockets or nukes. "Well regulated"...it's been regulated plenty. How far is it going to go? What's next after a mag restriction and AWB? Confiscation of all guns?The buck stops here. No more...not one inch of ground.

What word does "well regulated" modify in the text of the US Constitution?

A force composed of ordinary citizens.

You are really good at not answering questions directly

 

[Koya]

"Arms" = Man portable, discriminate weapon. Something a person can use to adequately defend themselves while discriminating between attackers and innocents.Nukes are not very discriminate. Same for most explosives (albeit on a smaller scale). Tanks are not exactly man portable.Machine guns are kind of a grey area as to how discriminate they are, so we regulate these. I'd like to see the 1986 manufacturing ban lifted to make them less outrageously expensive, but I can see the roots of the 1934 NFA.

Appreciate the definitions. Two thoughts: for one, definitions do not cover the issue of your right to own say an man portable discriminate weapon does not trump my right to, well, live. That said, your last statement seems interesting as I'd hardly say a machine gun is fully discriminate.And since there obviously needs to be some legit discussion on this, even though some extremists refuse to see that reality (and sadly, because we are talking about the freedom of people to not be killed here), maybe we can use your definitions, but tweak them. i.e., perhaps portable becomes handguns.... not saying that is the solution, but if you refuse to even begin to look at something (and its going not in the direction of allowing machine guns, but limiting to some degree what is already out there and how you can access them), I find that hard to believe considering the multiple events which have occurred of late.

Not sure your point about your right to live trumping my right to self-defense? If you are attacking me your right to live just became moot. That's where the discriminate part comes in. You attack me, I am allowed to stop you. I can't blow up my neighbor's house in the process.And I am not claiming machine guns are discriminate, that is why I separated it out and tried to explain why I am, for the most part, okay with the restrictions placed on them.

You misunderstood or I misstated.I never claimed that if I was attacking you that my rights in any way supercede yours.What I meant is we need to find the right balance here regarding rights.You have a right to own guns, so long as you are responsible and do not present a threat to others. The question is, how to we (1) make sure guns are, to the best of our ability, only in responsible hands and (2) how regardless of who is or is not responsible, ensure that (to the best of our ability) innocent people are not threatened with harm or death because guns are out there.My point is you have a point to defend yourself. But that does not necessarily extend to certain higher power weapons that, in the balance, end up threatening more innocent people than they do helping people to protect themselves.Does that make sense? You sort of explained it yourself, albeit in an exaggerated manner when you said you can defend yourself but can't blow up your neighbors house. Likewise, we can't have a national policy of allowing certain higher powered automatic weapons if too many of those weapons end up killing innocent people.

 

[timschochet]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are.

Slam your head all you want, but we're going to find a way to make these ####ers illegal.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Why the 2nd amendment?

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

VI. Conclusion

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

 

[jafo]

Good luck Tim. Even if you ban new sales of 30 round magazines, there are few lifetime supplys worth out there that will be pre ban and legal. Its a futile effort. Much more would be gained focusing on criminals than everyday citizens.

 

[Slingblade]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are.

Slam your head all you want, but we're going to find a way to make these ####ers illegal.

Molon labe

 

[Slingblade]

Good luck Tim. Even if you ban new sales of 30 round magazines, there are few lifetime supplys worth out there that will be pre ban and legal. Its a futile effort. Much more would be gained focusing on criminals than everyday citizens.

This. I don't think he realizes how many have just been sold. Brownells sold 3.5 years worth of mags in 3 days.They are pumping them out as fast as they can. The market is flooded. A mag cap restriction is only a feel good law with no effect.

 

[jafo]

Magazine sales

Brownells, the world's largest supplier of guns, said that it sold three-and-a-half years worth of magazines in three days.

And this is just one company people. The 30 round mags are here to stay, like them or not. Let alone the millions of magazines already owned. At least the economy is booming.

 

[timschochet]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

 

[Koya]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Isn't THIS really the answer her?For one, I don't know how anyone can legitimately argue that a well regulated militia is well, not regulated. So we all agree there is some degree of regulation.

Regardless of the "conclusion" of this one piece, we can also throw in the term "Militia" as clearly the language was not a well regulated citizenry.

So, we have some sort of militia - perhaps made of up of all / any citizens, but something - that must be not only regulated, but WELL regulated.

I believe the text itself is really the answer - as is so often the case with the root of the Constitution and founding documents, is true.

Too many guns are getting into irresponsible hands. There is lack of regulation there which has not threatened the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of innocent people.

Does that mean regulation means outlawing certain weapons? Does it mean more regulation on how to buy / who can own? Does it mean that to own certain higher powered weapons there needs to be more of a "militia" body, some say, organized group who's purpose is to defend as a group of regulated citizens?

Probably a little of all of the above.

However, if you stubbornly hold onto the fact that we are a "well regulated militia" now then one of two things: you've misinterpreted the 2nd amendment to the point that the lack of regulation risks the harm of innocent people and/or we need to change the text of the 2nd amendment altogether by amending the constitution / bill of rights.

I'd hope we can figure an answer based on the first.

 

[timschochet]

Magazine sales

Brownells, the world's largest supplier of guns, said that it sold three-and-a-half years worth of magazines in three days.

And this is just one company people. The 30 round mags are here to stay, like them or not. Let alone the millions of magazines already owned. At least the economy is booming.

Scary and depressing. All I can say is that, once the law passes, hopefully those of you who are law-abiding will turn them in or destroy them. If you're caught using them, hopefully you will be punished.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are.

You have not seen a "mag vest". You could easily build your own for as many as you could fit on it.

 

[boots11234]

I used to carry a 9MM because I carried a lot of cash on me and was around some pretty rough characters while doing it. I think that 9MM would have shot them dead just as easy as an assault rifle. The difference is I wouldn't be able to shoot 20 or 30 people without anyone getting away. I figured a few shots was enough for my purposes.

I have no problem with people having guns and carrying them. There were times I was glad either I or a friend had one. I just don't really see the need for an assault rifle. It's not really a self defense weapon. If someone bursts in your house it's a lot easier to grab a pistol than something that bulky.

So what? You don't see a need for it? Congrats?

OK, what "need" do you have for it? Or are you just wanting to drop pants and see who has the biggest given your tone?

First of all, 2nd amendment right. I don't have to show a need.

Second of all, multiple intruders, clearing my house, disaster situation, ec...

I am a strong proponent of individual rights. Including the right to bear arms.That said, to flippantly reply as if the 2nd amendment takes all possibility of a rational and truly openminded conversation about the matter out of the equation, then that's a sad statement.

Here we have terrible shooting after terrible shooting. Darn straight there is SOME need to show a need. Because eventually, if this goes unchecked, that 2nd amendment would become questionable whereas now most respect that right but want to find the right balance.

While it has been a while, let's not act like there is no ability to amend the constitution. These are laws of men that must be reviewed from time to time, not immutable truths.

Now, I do believe in the 2nd amendment. But we must now realize that the rights of non gun owners / innocents is becoming endangered - rights more important than say, the right to some arms (cause the right not to be shot by one for no reason trumps it). So, to preserve the 2nd amendment, we better have a real and open conversation about how to best interpret it in the modernity we live in.

These are not just any amendments. This is the Bill of Right we are talking about here.The foundation of our society and government.

You cannot possibly think that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment with assault rifles and high magazine capacity in mind

Nor did they write the 1st with the internet and television in mind. Yet we extend those rights to those media.

Powerfully good response. Never thought of that. Thanks.

 

[urbanhack]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

 

[Koya]

Good luck Tim. Even if you ban new sales of 30 round magazines, there are few lifetime supplys worth out there that will be pre ban and legal. Its a futile effort. Much more would be gained focusing on criminals than everyday citizens.

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are.

Slam your head all you want, but we're going to find a way to make these ####ers illegal.

Molon labe

These responses are just my point that by being overly stubborn, those who irrationally hold onto the "WE WON'T GIVE AN INCH" approach risk losing a lot more gun ownership rights than if we actually look for a solution that is not based on personal selfish want/need for arms, but an objective approach that better reflects a balanced regulatory framework to prevent more disasters.

 

[Slingblade]

Magazine sales

Brownells, the world's largest supplier of guns, said that it sold three-and-a-half years worth of magazines in three days.

And this is just one company people. The 30 round mags are here to stay, like them or not. Let alone the millions of magazines already owned. At least the economy is booming.

Scary and depressing. All I can say is that, once the law passes, hopefully those of you who are law-abiding will turn them in or destroy them. If you're caught using them, hopefully you will be punished.

They will be grandfathered in like last time. It won't be illegal.

 

[timschochet]

Magazine sales

Brownells, the world's largest supplier of guns, said that it sold three-and-a-half years worth of magazines in three days.

And this is just one company people. The 30 round mags are here to stay, like them or not. Let alone the millions of magazines already owned. At least the economy is booming.

Scary and depressing. All I can say is that, once the law passes, hopefully those of you who are law-abiding will turn them in or destroy them. If you're caught using them, hopefully you will be punished.

They will be grandfathered in like last time. It won't be illegal.

You could be right, but I really hope you're wrong. Times have changed since last Friday. The nation won't put up with NRA shenanigans on this stuff.

 

[Dvorak]

"Arms" = Man portable, discriminate weapon. Something a person can use to adequately defend themselves while discriminating between attackers and innocents.Nukes are not very discriminate. Same for most explosives (albeit on a smaller scale). Tanks are not exactly man portable.Machine guns are kind of a grey area as to how discriminate they are, so we regulate these. I'd like to see the 1986 manufacturing ban lifted to make them less outrageously expensive, but I can see the roots of the 1934 NFA.

Appreciate the definitions. Two thoughts: for one, definitions do not cover the issue of your right to own say an man portable discriminate weapon does not trump my right to, well, live. That said, your last statement seems interesting as I'd hardly say a machine gun is fully discriminate.And since there obviously needs to be some legit discussion on this, even though some extremists refuse to see that reality (and sadly, because we are talking about the freedom of people to not be killed here), maybe we can use your definitions, but tweak them. i.e., perhaps portable becomes handguns.... not saying that is the solution, but if you refuse to even begin to look at something (and its going not in the direction of allowing machine guns, but limiting to some degree what is already out there and how you can access them), I find that hard to believe considering the multiple events which have occurred of late.

Not sure your point about your right to live trumping my right to self-defense? If you are attacking me your right to live just became moot. That's where the discriminate part comes in. You attack me, I am allowed to stop you. I can't blow up my neighbor's house in the process.And I am not claiming machine guns are discriminate, that is why I separated it out and tried to explain why I am, for the most part, okay with the restrictions placed on them.

You misunderstood or I misstated.I never claimed that if I was attacking you that my rights in any way supercede yours.What I meant is we need to find the right balance here regarding rights.You have a right to own guns, so long as you are responsible and do not present a threat to others. The question is, how to we (1) make sure guns are, to the best of our ability, only in responsible hands and (2) how regardless of who is or is not responsible, ensure that (to the best of our ability) innocent people are not threatened with harm or death because guns are out there.My point is you have a point to defend yourself. But that does not necessarily extend to certain higher power weapons that, in the balance, end up threatening more innocent people than they do helping people to protect themselves.Does that make sense? You sort of explained it yourself, albeit in an exaggerated manner when you said you can defend yourself but can't blow up your neighbors house. Likewise, we can't have a national policy of allowing certain higher powered automatic weapons if too many of those weapons end up killing innocent people.

Automatic weapons are highly regulated & restricted. The process begins with the outrageous expense of the firearm itself ($5000+ for a piece of crap that I would not want to shoot), since they have been 100% banned from further manufacture or import since 1986. Then there are lots of forms, background checks & sign-offs from law enforcement.As for high powered, .50 caliber is I believe the largest a civilian can own. Anything bigger is not exactly a self-defense nor North American hunting round (unless woolly mammoths make a comeback) and they are classified as destructive devices by law.So, high-powered and automatic weapons are, for the sake of the argument here, not available to normal citizens. And anyone certainly cannot simply walk into a gun shop or gun show with money and walk out with one. If you want one of these, the BATF is going to be all up in your business.An AR-15, chambered in .223/5.56 is hardly high-powered.

 

[jafo]

Good luck Tim. Even if you ban new sales of 30 round magazines, there are few lifetime supplys worth out there that will be pre ban and legal. Its a futile effort. Much more would be gained focusing on criminals than everyday citizens.

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are.

Slam your head all you want, but we're going to find a way to make these ####ers illegal.

Molon labe

These responses are just my point that by being overly stubborn, those who irrationally hold onto the "WE WON'T GIVE AN INCH" approach risk losing a lot more gun ownership rights than if we actually look for a solution that is not based on personal selfish want/need for arms, but an objective approach that better reflects a balanced regulatory framework to prevent more disasters.

If a solution is presented that targets the criminals breaking the law I'd be happy to "give an inch". I've already stated I don't have a problem with making private sales at a gun show pass a background check. Banning the size of a magazine or a semi automatic rifle only hurts people that obey the law, so yea I won't give on that one because it has already been proven to not work.

 

[Mark Davis]

Magazine sales

Brownells, the world's largest supplier of guns, said that it sold three-and-a-half years worth of magazines in three days.

And this is just one company people. The 30 round mags are here to stay, like them or not. Let alone the millions of magazines already owned. At least the economy is booming.

Scary and depressing. All I can say is that, once the law passes, hopefully those of you who are law-abiding will turn them in or destroy them. If you're caught using them, hopefully you will be punished.

They will be grandfathered in like last time. It won't be illegal.

You could be right, but I really hope you're wrong. Times have changed since last Friday. The nation won't put up with NRA shenanigans on this stuff.

I suspect there will be legislation passed but I do think it will grandfather in already existing weapons and ammo. It is true there are huge supplies out there, but the problem doesn't lie with those who are long time owners of them in my opinion. Those aren't the people who are prone to do these things. It's the younger people who likely will need to purchase new weapons who are more likely to commit these acts. In the case of Adam Lanza, I don't think any legislation you are likely to see would have prevented that particular scenario. There just won't be a political appetite for legislators on the right, nor Democrats from more rural states, places with larger rural areas even like Pennsylvania, for any legislation that wouldn't grandfather the weapons already out there.

 

[jafo]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.

 

[Koya]

Good luck Tim. Even if you ban new sales of 30 round magazines, there are few lifetime supplys worth out there that will be pre ban and legal. Its a futile effort. Much more would be gained focusing on criminals than everyday citizens.

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are.

Slam your head all you want, but we're going to find a way to make these ####ers illegal.

Molon labe

These responses are just my point that by being overly stubborn, those who irrationally hold onto the "WE WON'T GIVE AN INCH" approach risk losing a lot more gun ownership rights than if we actually look for a solution that is not based on personal selfish want/need for arms, but an objective approach that better reflects a balanced regulatory framework to prevent more disasters.

If a solution is presented that targets the criminals breaking the law I'd be happy to "give an inch". I've already stated I don't have a problem with making private sales at a gun show pass a background check. Banning the size of a magazine or a semi automatic rifle only hurts people that obey the law, so yea I won't give on that one because it has already been proven to not work.

A couple thoughts. We both agree on the access question, which is important. Well, we agree in so much that there need to be no loopholes to get around background checks.Personally, I think we need more than background checks - training, registration, ongoing check ups... you show you are responsible in both use and storage you are good to go.Depending upon how successful this can be, then we would not need to entertain banning more weapons / variations (ie mag size etc). That said, if having some weapons out there presents a reality where, even with more regulation, the guns keep getting into the wrong hands, harming innocent people, then we HAVE to look at more stringent / wide ranging bans, because the rights of innocent people to not get killed trumps the general right to own such additional weapons for additional self defense. Basically, if the cons of having the guns out there really outweigh the pros (personal freedom for self defense and ability to arm should a hypothetical over reaching gov't look to usurp the will of the people), then we need to accept wider ranging bans.For me, the more training and regulation we have, the less bans outright will be needed. But again, I think it all has to be on the table at this point.

 

[Koya]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.

What about the pro gun people that want to make sure the laws don't enable innocent people to be at unnecessary risk of harm? And as of today, that seems to be just the case.If more laws won't help the situation, we shouldn't entertain them. But we KNOW the current legal set up (among other things) doesn't work. So we must discuss what legal framework / changes would help.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

It shouldn't be more difficult to operate a car than it is to operate a firearm

 

[jafo]

Good luck Tim. Even if you ban new sales of 30 round magazines, there are few lifetime supplys worth out there that will be pre ban and legal. Its a futile effort. Much more would be gained focusing on criminals than everyday citizens.

One more question. If there is a room with 100 children and and three unarmed adults. How many of these 103 unarmed people would be killed if a manic walked in with an AR15 with 5 30 round magazines or with 15 10 round magazines?How much of a difference would there be and would you feel better about it?

How does one carry 15, 10 round mags? Where does he have these so he can quickly load these? Authorities said that Lanza was so fast b/c he taped 2 magazines together? So if the authorities say this is why it was so fast, I guess I'll take their word for it. So more magazines, is less ability to tape them together. People on here say they can change a magazine in less than a second, but that would be under ideal conditions. Not running around in chaos. Odds are he'd have to carry around 15 mags in a bag where he would fumble for it. I guarantee any study will show that someone can get off many more bullets, the bigger the clips are.

Slam your head all you want, but we're going to find a way to make these ####ers illegal.

Molon labe

These responses are just my point that by being overly stubborn, those who irrationally hold onto the "WE WON'T GIVE AN INCH" approach risk losing a lot more gun ownership rights than if we actually look for a solution that is not based on personal selfish want/need for arms, but an objective approach that better reflects a balanced regulatory framework to prevent more disasters.

If a solution is presented that targets the criminals breaking the law I'd be happy to "give an inch". I've already stated I don't have a problem with making private sales at a gun show pass a background check. Banning the size of a magazine or a semi automatic rifle only hurts people that obey the law, so yea I won't give on that one because it has already been proven to not work.

A couple thoughts. We both agree on the access question, which is important. Well, we agree in so much that there need to be no loopholes to get around background checks.Personally, I think we need more than background checks - training, registration, ongoing check ups... you show you are responsible in both use and storage you are good to go.Depending upon how successful this can be, then we would not need to entertain banning more weapons / variations (ie mag size etc). That said, if having some weapons out there presents a reality where, even with more regulation, the guns keep getting into the wrong hands, harming innocent people, then we HAVE to look at more stringent / wide ranging bans, because the rights of innocent people to not get killed trumps the general right to own such additional weapons for additional self defense. Basically, if the cons of having the guns out there really outweigh the pros (personal freedom for self defense and ability to arm should a hypothetical over reaching gov't look to usurp the will of the people), then we need to accept wider ranging bans.For me, the more training and regulation we have, the less bans outright will be needed. But again, I think it all has to be on the table at this point.

I am 100% for gun training and safety. If someone doesn't know how to use a gun, they are a danger to themselves and those around. I am more concerned about the person who wants to be a mass murdering son of a #####..they are going to use what is available. If he can't get a gun, he is going to turn to a homemade bomb, or some other weapon capable of inflicting massive amounts of damage. At the end of the day, we really need to focus on identifying these people, what the warning signs are, and how to stop them before it happens. I can't say we as a society really know what makes these people tick yet, but we need to.

 

[Slingblade]

Why the 2nd amendment?

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

VI. Conclusion

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

These gun freaks are paranoid and delusional.

The anti gun crowd are delusional if they think more laws are going to stop the people that already break the laws.

What about the pro gun people that want to make sure the laws don't enable innocent people to be at unnecessary risk of harm? And as of today, that seems to be just the case.If more laws won't help the situation, we shouldn't entertain them. But we KNOW the current legal set up (among other things) doesn't work. So we must discuss what legal framework / changes would help.

Why? Homicide rates have been steadily going down since 91. And if they continue at the rate they are going, in 10 to 15 years we will have the same rate that Europe does.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Why the 2nd amendment?THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedVI. ConclusionEnglish history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (p.1039)governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

Mr. Two Cents: The 3 specific proposals for gun control that are currently being debated are: a return to the Assault Weapons Ban, an end to the private sales loophole, and a limitation on high capacity magazine. As you know, I am against the first, and in favor of 2 and 3. Please explain what ANY of these 3 proposals have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I see no connection whatsoever, and I have no idea why you would choose to raise this subject.

I have personally have no problem with #2. Close it, it does not affect me.#3 is a problem, as I stated yesterday my 61 yr old wife can change magazines in a matter of seconds on her 9mm semi-automatic handgun. So going from the full 19+1 to a 10+1 magazine would make a difference but not a huge one for someone young and trained and wanting to kill. But the most problem I have is indeed the 2nd amendment, if you read the above conclusion it states why we have the 2nd amendment and smaller/restricted magazines would indeed not help in the cause of "preserving the right of a free state". Why do you think Japan did not attack the mainland? Why do you thin China came out 2 days ago and said that the government should disarm our citizens. Not to sound heartless and uncaring but there is far more at stake here than the lives taken a week ago. Freedom of the nation itself is at stake. Please read post 3807 and think about that.

 

[Dvorak]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Isn't THIS really the answer her?For one, I don't know how anyone can legitimately argue that a well regulated militia is well, not regulated. So we all agree there is some degree of regulation.

Regardless of the "conclusion" of this one piece, we can also throw in the term "Militia" as clearly the language was not a well regulated citizenry.

So, we have some sort of militia - perhaps made of up of all / any citizens, but something - that must be not only regulated, but WELL regulated.

I believe the text itself is really the answer - as is so often the case with the root of the Constitution and founding documents, is true.

Too many guns are getting into irresponsible hands. There is lack of regulation there which has not threatened the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of innocent people.

Does that mean regulation means outlawing certain weapons? Does it mean more regulation on how to buy / who can own? Does it mean that to own certain higher powered weapons there needs to be more of a "militia" body, some say, organized group who's purpose is to defend as a group of regulated citizens?

Probably a little of all of the above.

However, if you stubbornly hold onto the fact that we are a "well regulated militia" now then one of two things: you've misinterpreted the 2nd amendment to the point that the lack of regulation risks the harm of innocent people and/or we need to change the text of the 2nd amendment altogether by amending the constitution / bill of rights.

I'd hope we can figure an answer based on the first.

You are having a lot of trouble with your definition of "regulated". Think regulated = practiced, disciplined. The whole things makes no sense if you think regulated=controlled, restricted due to the whole "shall not be infringed" part.Which makes sense?

1. A practiced, disciplined militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

2. A controlled, restricted militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you think #2, there is no point continuing the conversation. We'll never agree.

The Supreme Court has ruled it is an individual right anyway, and the right is not dependent on militia service. Most States and even 10 USC § 311 define the militia as all able bodied adults that are not in the armed forces.