Draconian Gun Legislation Proposed (Afghanistan, soldiers, how much, military)

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

I read it just the other way...

There can be no militia, regulated or not, unless citizens have the necessary arms.

Not a member of the NRA, don't hunt, went to the target range a few times with friends years ago...

I guess if enough felt strongly enough... the amendment could be repealed?

I find it interesting the First Amendment continues to have broader interpretation at all levels where as the Second is under constant attack.

Huh, you cannot turn English Grammar on its head to make a point, the subordinate clause is obvious.

Originally Posted by Roaddog

people do hunt with sporting rifles and as far as the mag size i don't see anything wrong with 20 round or larger size mags, it just means you can shoot longer between reloads just like havinf a large gas tank.
Only a fool would think restricting the legal gun owner stops crime.

What the heck are you hunting with a 20 round or larger mag?

"Hey, Bubba, I got my buck, but I can't eat it, derned thing must have 80 rounds in it."

Only a fool would think restricting the legal gun owner stops crime.

The construction of this sentence states the obvious, the problem is not what is stated in the sentence.

Let me phrase it a bit differently.

As of February 7th there have been approximately 1,780 gun related deaths since the school shooting at Newtown. This is monstrous, what do you think should be done?

Keep in mind that people who live in homes with guns are at least 3 times as likely to be killed by a gun than those who live in homes without guns.

A gun in the home increases personal safety
www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htmThe study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know ... Most people keep guns in their homes for self-protection. ... the risk of getting killed was 2.7 times greater in homes with a gun than without them. ...

[Ultrarunner]

"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."

Sure seems the writers of the Constitution could have done a better job if the intent was to regulate fire arms???

Civics was a long time ago... the instructor said the constitution places limits on government...

So, you are saying the constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights places limits on citizens?

[Senno]

Antonin Scalia says just that:

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com

[Ultrarunner]

He does not go into specifics... only says limitations are possible while acknowledging the right.

It would seem to make perfect sense... my home/property my rules... not my home/property subject to the rules of the owner.

[Senno]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

He does not go into specifics... only says limitations are possible while acknowledging the right.

It would seem to make perfect sense... my home/property my rules... not my home/property subject to the rules of the owner.

Well he can't go into specifics. He needs to get a case first that sets the actual facts of the case.

But generally the Constitution allows for regulations.

How much is the big fight.

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

"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."

Sure seems the writers of the Constitution could have done a better job if the intent was to regulate fire arms???

Civics was a long time ago... the instructor said the constitution places limits on government...

So, you are saying the constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights places limits on citizens?

Definitely, ones rights end when they infringe on another's. The most classic example is, although freedom of speech is protected, it does not protect shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre.

The military forces of the United States were largely state militias up to and including much of the Civil War. In many communities citizens were required to assemble on the town green after church and drill.

Remember that the reloading process and volley fire required extensive training. Among other things the firing of one's ramrod over to the enemy was frowned upon. Another bad habit was: load powder, load shot, load powder, load shot, load powder, load shot, fire. Bad things happened to one's formation when that occurred.

Citizen militias did have a bad habit of falling apart when faced with professional British fire.

The Battle of New Orleans is remembered as it was such an anomaly. An anomaly created by bad British leadership.

Back to the well regulated militia, the founders knew a poorly regulated militia was worthless, that is why the clause that is in the amendment is in it. The founders also knew that the government was poor, and that most Americans were rural and had guns, so they made the best of a bad situation and attempted to incorporate the citizen weapons into the defense of the nation.

The amendment has no validity in today's world. I find it interesting that so many gun nuts advocate citizen ownership of weapons for purposes of insurrection, even LaPierre stated before Congress that insurrection required citizen ownership of weaponry.

In how many countries could he have advocated equipping the citizenry for insurrection? Bizarre.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by DMenscha

I have a 20 gauge pump action shotgun. I have it for my wife to shoot in a situation that doesn't require a well aimed shot. I like bustin' sporting clays, it's about as expensive as a round of golf (which I also love) but I'm a much better shooter than a golfer. MUCH better!

My next door neighbor is a seriously deranged person. I mean seriously mentally affected. The shotgun is positioned where if he were to arrive at the door, the weapon is placed where my wife could retreat, flip the safety off, and "click click" invite the bloke to take another step forward. BTW she traps spiders and takes them outside.

I have serious doubts about anyone who claims they need a spray gun with a gazillion rounds for protection.

Edit: OK I know I should wield a 12 gauge for manly reasons, but It hurts my shoulder after 100 rounds

How many rounds in the pump action?

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

As of February 7th there have been approximately 1,780 gun related deaths since the school shooting at Newtown. This is monstrous, what do you think should be done?

Can you site the source of this information?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by user_id

It doesn't maintain anything, the masses vastly outnumber the ruling class....the masses don't need guns to veto the ruling class....they need unity and guns don't provide that.

So far guns have just been a good tool to get working-class Americans to support policies that enrich the elite (political or otherwise). Not that I mind.....

I'm really loving the fact that, some believe that having guns, even if they do have assault rifles, will protect them against the government should it misbehave.

Go right ahead, load that rifle. Get your friends to do the same. Sit ready for the government to come. Wait what was that??? BAM! a huge explosion disorients you only for you to find out that one of your buddy's limbs has landed in your lap. Then you notice fighter jets a few thousand feet above then run for the hills only to be taken out by tank rounds and artillery fire. It's at that point you realize that the government, the one you swore you would fight has an overwhelming superiority in firepower.

Anyone who uses this as a reason needs to be committed to an asylum. Retards!

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Definitely, ones rights end when they infringe on another's. The most classic example is, although freedom of speech is protected, it does not protect shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre.

The military forces of the United States were largely state militias up to and including much of the Civil War. In many communities citizens were required to assemble on the town green after church and drill.

Remember that the reloading process and volley fire required extensive training. Among other things the firing of one's ramrod over to the enemy was frowned upon. Another bad habit was: load powder, load shot, load powder, load shot, load powder, load shot, fire. Bad things happened to one's formation when that occurred.

Citizen militias did have a bad habit of falling apart when faced with professional British fire.

The Battle of New Orleans is remembered as it was such an anomaly. An anomaly created by bad British leadership.

Back to the well regulated militia, the founders knew a poorly regulated militia was worthless, that is why the clause that is in the amendment is in it. The founders also knew that the government was poor, and that most Americans were rural and had guns, so they made the best of a bad situation and attempted to incorporate the citizen weapons into the defense of the nation.

The amendment has no validity in today's world. I find it interesting that so many gun nuts advocate citizen ownership of weapons for purposes of insurrection, even LaPierre stated before Congress that insurrection required citizen ownership of weaponry.

In how many countries could he have advocated equipping the citizenry for insurrection? Bizarre.

If the amendment isn't valid... why not simply seek to have it repealed?