Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First and foremost the duty of our elected officials is to follow and enforce the Constitution. The current ruling is that firearms in common use for legal purposes are protected under the 2nd amendment. This includes semi-automatic rifles and pistols. The overwhelming number of firearms in the United States are semi-automatic. The AR15 is the single most popular rifle in the United States. A federal ban will not withstand a court challenge..... nor should it.
"unless they do away with the filibuster. We have a very troubling gun culture in our country"
I thought people like you WANTED the Constitutions to be followed? That is all we heard when Trump was president.
Just 1 small question. In the Constitution it states, "shall not be INFRINGED" What does "infringed", mean to you?
I am glad to see you think you are SMARTER then our Founding Fathers who wrote teh Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.
The felt so STRONG about it they made it the SECOND amendment.
Who knows better what the Second Amendment means than the Founding Fathers? Here are some powerful gun quotations from the Founding Fathers themselves.
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"[i]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
In one of the post, someone mentioned there has to be compromise, and there seems there is no solution.
There is a solution, and as soon as I get a few people on this thread to respond to my questions, I will post what I think the real solutions to this gun issue is.
My questions... Why does anyone need an ak47/ar15, or any gun that is capable of shooting multiple rounds in a matter of seconds.
Why does anyone need a handgun that does the same?
I am not against gun ownership, and want to know your reasons regarding the two questions I asked above.
With some answers, I will go into detail regarding a solution that will work for everyone.
I think I have one.
First, I do not hunt and the Second Amendment CLEARLY has NOTHING to do with hunting.
All my firearms training is related to my military wartime service and my law enforcement career, which is why “I” prefer modern sporting arms that are semi-automatic, like the AR series of rifles and semi-automatic pistols. They are very user friendly, reliable and very durable, WHICH is my reason for my preference for them, over a bolt action rifle, a shotgun or a 5-6 shot revolver.
Plus, the .223 caliber bullet that the AR fires are NOT as powerful as say a 30-06 Springfield bullet, which is a common hunting caliber, that has a far greater chance of over penetrating through the criminal and hitting an innocent person in an urban environment, which I live in, than a .223 fired from an AR.
I would rate myself as a slightly better than a average shooter, due to my training, but in a high stress and critical situation having a firearm that is semi-automatic only increases your chances of survival, especially against two or more attackers that are moving. Plus, people, who’s only knowledge of firearms is from the movies and TV do not understand that bullets don’t “blow you away,” they just punch holes in you and if you do not hit a vital organ within the first or second shot, there is a very good chance that your attacker(s) can still carry out an murderous attack on you and others... Even after being shot over 10 plus times... Please research this for the actual stats, which is a proven fact in numerous situations. Especially if your attacker is high, crazy or whatever. Even being hit several times, they can still fight on and kill you after you put those 10 or more rounds in him.
Yes, after being shot that many times, the person will most likely die, but not after inflicting more harm onto innocent people... Before being remanded to a “higher court” for judgement.
...It’s a false believe, from the movies and TV, that people will stop their criminal attacks, if shot once in the arm or leg... That’s pure BS. Yes, some will, but many more will not and in a gun fight, “I” WANT every advantage so I might survive this deadly encounter and having a semi-automatic firearm with with more than 6-10 rounds slides all or most of the advantage towards me.
Plus, not too many people can hit a moving man size target in the arms or legs.
FYI, I use to carry a revolver as a law enforcement officer when I first started that career. Reloading a standard 6 shot revolver is far more difficult than reloading a semi-automatic pistol for the average person with little to no real training. Especially in a life or death fight where you are under severe stress. Unless you are highly trained in reloading a revolver or bolt action rifle where it’s burnt into your “muscle memory,” in a stressful situation, you will most likely fail since most humans tend to loose most of their fine motor skills in a high stress situation, which again, is a proven fact, which I’ve seen several times before in my careers.
By stating the above, that is why “I,” as a law abiding citizen of the United States, prefer both a semi-automatic pistol and rifle/carbine over a revolver or a bolt action rifle. Plus, most law abiding citizen are not as highly trained as our military and law enforcement to fight and survive, so in any possible fight for their’s and their loved one’s lives, semi-automatic firearms gives them the advantage or at least an equal footing with a criminal.
Also, semi-automatic firearms gives both a female and/or a small statured male the advantage or acts as an equalizer in a fight against a much bigger AND stronger person(s).
I’m leaving out the pump action shotgun since many females have great difficulties with that type of firearm since it has a pretty “stiff” recoil for a small statured person AND required a lot of training on how to load it, chamber a round and manually re-chamber another round, after firing the first round automatically without stopping to think about “what do I do next to make this thing fire again!! That will get you killed, if you have to stop and think... Not a good thing... Trust me on that!!
Plus, a 1oz slug shot from a shotgun will go through several people, doors and walls before stopping... Not a good thing in an urban area. As for double odd buckshot, which contains 8 or 9 .32 caliber pellets and if you do not get a good center-mass hit on a human sized target, most, if not all of those .32 caliber pellets could possibly miss the criminal and hit an innocent person.
I was a law enforcement firearms instructor for over 25 years and not being sexist, but many and yes, not all females, but many simply have issues AND fears with a common 12 gage pump-action shotgun’s recoil... Like the Remington 870... I love the shotgun, but I’m also 6 foot tall and 250lbs.
FYI, the shotgun is starting to be replaced in many law enforcement agencies with AR series of rifles and carbines... For all of the above reasons, which IMHO, is a mistake.
In the United States and currently, the two most popular calibers are .223 Remington and the 9x19mm. Both of these calibers are basically mid-range performance calibers. To be honest, I would be far more worried if I was hit with say a .357 or .44 Magnum round that are commonly fired from 5-6 shot revolvers or being hit with a 30-06 Springfield or .270 Winchester round fired from a common hunting rifle since all four of those common “hunting” calibers are high-performance calibers that will often penetrate through a human target AND do massive damage to the human body in the process (If somebody is worried about that.)... Verses what a .223 or 9mm does to the human body.
Most hunting calibers are meant to take down Bears, Elk and Moose, which are a lot bigger, which greater mass than a human.
FYI, the media makes the .223 and the 9mm to be the most powerful and most dangerous calibers out there AND available to the public... Which is a myth at best, but I’ll lean towards a lie to purposely confuse the people with no knowledge of firearms.
I just told you my background, so what is your background relating to firearms, to include any training involving the legal and safe usage of them to qualify your statements on why you do not believe that private citizens should have ARs, AKs and High Capacity magazines?
There is nothing wrong with an opinion, but an opinion isn’t a fact and often not based on any factual information.
As for what can be done about firearm violence, the number ONE first step should be to ENFORCE ALL THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS FOR THE CRIMINAL MISUSE OF FIREARMS, IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME!!! Until that happens, why do we need more laws AND how are more laws going to work better when they’re not enforcing the laws we already have? In my law enforcement career, one of the FIRST charges that are dropped or pleaded down is the FIREARMS VIOLATIONS... which as a private citizen, now, makes me sick since it’s often done for political AND political correctness reasons. AND the criminal tends to walk with “time served,” often less than a week and some probation, which only makes criminals more bolder to commit more and often, more violent crimes since they see our “Justice System” as a joke... Trust me, they proudly boast about that once arrested.
Cal Guy, hopefully “I” answered all your questions in a respectful manner, so I’m now looking forward to your response.
While I'm not a huge fan of Ted Cruz, he is absolutely spot on in his statement here. His proposed bill is a great start in targeting some of the root causes. It still needs some focus on mental health though. It is a much more rational and logical step towards ending violence.
The exception for private transfers has nothing to do with gun shows.
It's not a "loophole".....it's by design.
It's why a Dad can buy his kid a 22 for Christmas without doing a background check.
It's why hunting buddies can trade shotguns without doing a background check.
It's why a husband can buy his wife a revolver for personal protection without a background check.
It's why you can inherit your grandfather's WWII firearms collection without a background check.
The fact that it also applies to private individuals at a gun show.....or anyplace else for that matter is irrelevant and not a "loophole".
And BTW, it's still illegal for an individual to sell to a restricted person.
Which is why most reputable private sellers won't sell to anyone who doesn't have a CCW permit.
The thing is, even if every crazy person or criminal on planet earth was prevented from buying a gun, what's to stop them from taking someone elses gun? Go ahead and make gun ownership illegal and it won't stop people from procuring one illegally and shooting people with it? Nothing.
It's already against the law to shoot people, and yet people get shot. So making a new law will only effect honest, legal gun owners.
"The "anti firearm" crowd are NOT anti-firearm to the extent they want all firearms, regardless of design intention of use eradicated from public hands".
WRONG. Starting with U.S. SENATOR, down to MANY dem politicans and MANY on here.
This naivete is why we have With OVER 20,000 EXISTING ANTI-gun laws on the books now and says otherwise.
"Reasonable discussions.". "You CAN'T REASON with UN-reasonable people!"
"the silly "assault weapon" moniker so often misused"
Let's start with there is NO SUCH THING as an "assault weapon".
It is a MADE UP phrase BY A so-called "journalist"!
You describe "individuals" then you equate that to being "all" totally "anti-firearm".
There is indeed an assault weapon definition. There exist quite a few of them actually.
You get the drift I'm sure. You not liking or being in agreement with them regardless, your denial has no weight in point of fact.
Understanding that your denial and your rigidity of stance regarding the inability to discuss this topic rationally with the anti crowd must change if some form of consensus is to be arrived at.
Otherwise - just as the vaunted 2nd amendment has already been modified from it's origins, so to will your ability to remain in denial. Either negotiate or lose the fight.
Yes it really is that simple.
The majority will eventually speak and when they do you won't like the outcome.
The public cannot tolerate forever the proliferation of firearms in conjunction with the proliferating numbers of criminals and mentally ill using them to commit these deeds. Surely you must realize they will speak loudly. You must either compromise or lose.
This is all I'm saying. Firearms are far too many and widespread in the U.S. for anyone to consider confiscation. There would be massive upheaval of the likes that would make the attack on the Capital Buildings pale in comparison to even suggest such a tactic. BUT, something has to be done and until the firearm crowd speaks to actually forcing compliance and upholding of those thousands of laws already on the books instead of demanding a total hands off - you'll continue to lose support from your own demographic.
I read the ignorant definition of an " assault weapon." Basically, a 10 round magazine and insignificant aesthetic attachments that simply change the look and appearance of the weapon, but do nothing to change the operation.
You get the drift I'm sure. You not liking or being in agreement with them regardless, your denial has no weight in point of fact.
Understanding that your denial and your rigidity of stance regarding the inability to discuss this topic rationally with the anti crowd must change if some form of consensus is to be arrived at.
Otherwise - just as the vaunted 2nd amendment has already been modified from it's origins, so to will your ability to remain in denial. Either negotiate or lose the fight.
Yes it really is that simple.
The majority will eventually speak and when they do you won't like the outcome.
The public cannot tolerate forever the proliferation of firearms in conjunction with the proliferating numbers of criminals and mentally ill using them to commit these deeds. Surely you must realize they will speak loudly. You must either compromise or lose.
This is all I'm saying. Firearms are far too many and widespread in the U.S. for anyone to consider confiscation. There would be massive upheaval of the likes that would make the attack on the Capital Buildings pale in comparison to even suggest such a tactic. BUT, something has to be done and until the firearm crowd speaks to actually forcing compliance and upholding of those thousands of laws already on the books instead of demanding a total hands off - you'll continue to lose support from your own demographic.
Here is the issue. Many of pro firearms people rely on logic, not emotion to make their decisions, and they have experience actually shooting the weapons the politicians want to ban. That is why, we are adamant on some of the "descriptors" utilized to define the politicians and medias made up term of assault weapon.
For instance, nothing listed here (from your links) helps with the "lethality" of the firearm.
A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
A thumbhole stock.
A folding or telescoping stock.
A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
A flash suppressor.
A forward pistol grip.
These are like adding body cladding on a car, just add on's that do nothing. The verbiage does do something though, it will effectively turn grandpa's 70 year old Remington 7400 into a ban worthy "assault weapon".
An interesting thing is, "assault rifle" , is defined differently than the politician and media biased term of "assault weapon".
Also, these so called "assault weapons" are used in 17% of mass shootings. So why are they targeting a item that is rarely used , vs handguns ? Again, it isn't rational or logical.....seems political to me.
You get the drift I'm sure. You not liking or being in agreement with them regardless, your denial has no weight in point of fact.
The weight in point of fact is that these definitions are made up to support a certain point of view.
Understanding that your denial and your rigidity of stance regarding the inability to discuss this topic rationally with the anti crowd must change if some form of consensus is to be arrived at.
Bull****...…. change YOUR stance / rigidity.
Otherwise - just as the vaunted 2nd amendment has already been modified from it's origins, so to will your ability to remain in denial. Either negotiate or lose the fight.
Pro gun people don't believe we will lose the fight.
Yes it really is that simple.
Then you should be able to comprehend that we will not be moved.
The majority will eventually speak and when they do you won't like the outcome.
The American people have no stomach for the carnage that will ensue if this issue is forced.
The public cannot tolerate forever the proliferation of firearms in conjunction with the proliferating numbers of criminals and mentally ill using them to commit these deeds. Surely you must realize they will speak loudly. You must either compromise or lose.
No.
This is all I'm saying. Firearms are far too many and widespread in the U.S. for anyone to consider confiscation. There would be massive upheaval of the likes that would make the attack on the Capital Buildings pale in comparison to even suggest such a tactic. BUT, something has to be done and until the firearm crowd speaks to actually forcing compliance and upholding of those thousands of laws already on the books instead of demanding a total hands off - you'll continue to lose support from your own demographic.
This is where we agree on something..... enforce the laws on the books. Stop with the incessant wailing about certain types of firearms that are no different than any other common firearm. Can the rhetoric about bans / restrictions on firearms already in common use. Address the root cause of the issue, which is NOT guns, but societal norms. Yes, it is much harder, but if you truly want change that is the only way.
Really? Plain clothes cops brandish long arm guns in coffee shops, restaurants, and other public places?
I've seen that in plenty of places. The motorcycle cops have one strapped on the back of their bikes. Good lord don't be so afraid of the world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
