What kind of gun control do you consider acceptable?

[zanne]

Or is any gun control acceptable to you? I've often wondered if some gun "enthusiasts" here are against any kind of gun control. Please satisfy my curiosity. Please be specific; in other words, avoid saying "very little" or "alot".

[virginia mountainman]

1. I am fairly happy with the way things are right now..

..On the federal level...

BUT, we need to make a way for those that loose the right to own a firearm thru a non violent felony conviction, a way to get the right to own a firearm back, along with voting rights.

I would also like to see the domestic offender misdemeanor gun ban tweaked a bit...It is TOO easy to get a life time ban, just for telling the in laws to go to hell.

Most states are basically okay, but some are far too strict. California, and Illinois pop to mind.

[Kali]

2. me personally? none

for criminals and others deemable incompetent? Probably what is on the books now, but better enforced is fine.

[iverglas]

14. "better enforced is fine"

And that would mean ...?

Don't feel singled out. I ask many people who say this the same thing.

How does a society "enforce" a prohibition against criminals doing something?

You make a law against them doing it ... and ... and ... they do it.

Search their houses daily? Get them to turn out their pockets whenever you see them on the street? Make them open their trunks before they're allowed to drive out of the driveway?

It seems to me that "enforce" means "make effective". In dictionary speak, "ensure observance of laws and rules". How would one ensure that criminals observed the law against them possessing firearms?

[Kali]

18. I'm thinking more in terms of convictions and punishments when caught.

Not searches for their own sake.

[iverglas]

19. oh well

I'm thinking that works about as well as, well, as it does. Which is to say it doesn't.

It also doesn't do much for the people who are victims of firearms violence.

But what the hey, it's the USAmerican way. Blame and punish.

Try to prevent/reduce harm? That might impinge on someone's precious freedom to do whatever the hell s/he wants ...

[ManiacJoe]

21. You have it right.

> I'm thinking that works about as well as, well, as it does. Which is to say it doesn't.

The most common reason for it not working is that the gun charges are the first ones dropped during the plea agreements.

[Kali]

26. I never said I had anything against prevention - in terms of education

and that sort of thing. Further eroding the constitution isn't my idea of the way to go about whatever it is you claim to want to accomplish.

[iverglas]

28. never mind, eh?

Anything one might think of that might prevent some of the thousands and thousands of firearms deaths that happen every year in the US would just be "eroding the constitution".

Just keep on putting them bad guyz in jail. That'll fix it.

[gorfle]

46. It will fix what needs fixing.

Anything one might think of that might prevent some of the thousands and thousands of firearms deaths that happen every year in the US would just be "eroding the constitution".

Just keep on putting them bad guyz in jail. That'll fix it.

See, this is the fundamental problem with your argument, Iverglas.

We say punish the people committing the crimes.

You want to punish everyone else along with them, in spite of the fact that only 2% of 250,000,000 firearm owners are causing problems.

Even if putting bad guys in jail was completely ineffective, what could possibly be fair about penalizing the other 249 million people who did no wrong?

[Kali]

55. sorry, I don't really understand what you are saying

you don't feel the constitution is an important document?

[krispos42]

62. I think maybe it does work

To a certain extent.

During the 1990's the US homicide rate dropped 40%, and violent crime showed a similar drop. Despite the 1993 Assault Weapons Ban being in effect at that time, there was virtually no change in the numbers, calibers, or types of firearms here.

However, during that time several states such as California introduced "three-strikes-and-you're-out" laws that warehoused many career criminals in prisons for long prison terms.

And Bill Clinton's COPS program put about 50,000 more federally-funded police officers on city streets.

Since most crimes are committed by "the usual suspects" of career criminals, getting them off the streets will have a positive effect on crime.

I don't necessarily think this is the best way to reduce crime. I'd rather people did not have the motivation or need to commit crimes, and instead were motivated to get honest, decent-paying jobs.



That's part of the solution. I think other parts include the neoconservative policies that are turning America into a banana republic (such as shitty public education, regressive tax structure, union-busting, the rise of monopolies and cartels through merger-mania, and decimating our manufacturing sector), lack of universal-single-payer health care, and our corporate-backed Endless War on Non-Big-Pharmaceutical-Company Mood-Altering Substances.

[maxidivine]

72. Our court system is soft

on habitual offenders and gang members, some of them get long sentences but not always and not often enough, and they seem to keep coming out worse than before. not sure why, but they definitely do.

While individuals whose firearm is old, poorly maintained, and fired nearly a thousand rounds in one sitting when it malfunctioned get railroaded by the BATFE.

Quite the system we've got going.

[gorfle]

45. So then...

How does a society "enforce" a prohibition against criminals doing something?

You make a law against them doing it ... and ... and ... they do it.

So how does a society "enforce" a prohibition against owning firearms?

You make a law against them doing it ... and ... and ... they do it!

[mike_c]

3. I favor a complete ban on private ownership of handguns....

OK, maybe not COMPLETE, but pretty damned close. I also favor a ban on private ownership of long guns that have an essentially military purpose, i.e. killing and maiming humans. I'm in favor of registered ownership of sporting/hunting weapons, with the caveat that they never be legally carried concealed or ready to discharge except when hunting, target shooting, etc.

To those who object that Americans need guns to protect themselves from political oppression, my response is "How's that working out for you?" I suspect that the founders who penned the second amendment would be appalled by the state of government in this country today. The folks who've made the militia argument to justify their need for guns have largely undermined their own credibility, IMO. Instead, we kill one another to settle petty disputes or to commit petty crimes. There's no honor in that.

edit-- Gawd it gets harder to spell every dsy!

[virginia mountainman]

6. You do realize..

That the parameters you endorse....would ban practically ALL guns??

Why, Because practically ALL firearms, are direct descendants of military arms..

Even the lever action 30-30, when it was first made, was a military weapon, and was issued to troops around the world.

Practicaly ALL, bolt action hunting rifles are based on Mauser's action...which was in WIDE SPREAD use as a military rifle for 75 years.

[mike_c]

7. to an extent, yes, but...

...I think it's a specious argument that we can avoid with some common sense. In fact every gun can be used to kill people, and as you say, many modern guns are either descended from military weapons or are "civilian versions" of existing military firearms. Still, I'd draw the line to allow guns whose uses are primarily recreational and which are difficult to conceal. That's the bottom line for me-- guns whose PRIMARY purpose is killing humans have no place in a civil society.

When the revolution starts I'll be among the first in line to arm myself. Until then, guns are part of American society's problems, not its solutions.

on edit-- in case it's necessary, "when the revolution starts" is a bit of a joke. Sort of. It's one of those sort-of jokes.

[derby378]

11. When the revolution starts, where will you get your firearm?

"You see, there are two kinds of people in this world, my friend - those with loaded guns, and those who dig." :shrug:

[Irreverend IX]

24. This is an AR-15:

It's the most common rifle used in competitive target shooting. It's also almost never used in crimes (all rifles combined account for under 3% of yearly homicides; more people are killed by fists and feet). Do you think it should be banned?

[mike_c]

29. an interesting question....

To be honest, my reason for favoring very strict gun control is to stop the proliferation and possession of guns frequently used to commit crimes or other forms of what should otherwise be petty violence, including self protection that elevates the violence to fatal levels. Assault rifles are, as you note, a minor component of that demographic. On the face of it, there seems little reason to prohibit them IF they cannot ever be carried concealed and IF removing other firearms from society doesn't simply lead to substitution of assault rifles for saturday night specials-- an outcome that I suspect is not as unlikely as it sounds today. So as long they are not much of a problem, I don't see much of a reason to prohibit them. If they become more of a problem, then that would merit banning ownership of them.

The issue here is what benefits society the most. If people would stop shooting one another with handguns except in the most extreme circumstances then handguns would not be a societal problem and we could all carry without fear. HOWEVER, I frankly think that if people could privately own nuclear bombs, they would detonate them without reservation JUST TO SHOW THE BASTARDS THEY WON'T BE MESSED WITH. If you get my meaning. Or because the bitch just wouldn't shut up. Or because they WANTED that bling. So if the statistics for assault rifles remained as you quoted, then fine, but I suspect they would not.

[Irreverend IX]

40. ...substitution of assault rifles for saturday night specials...

What makes you think this is "not as unlikely as it sounds today?" Criminals treat their guns as disposable tools, throwing them in the river if they actually have to shoot someone. Cheap potmetal handguns are good for this purpose, $1000 rifles are not. And rifles are practically impossible to conceal and their ammo is much more expensive than a pistol's. A criminal using any kind of rifle makes about as much sense as a pizza delivery guy driving a bus.

[mike_c]

42. "A criminal using any kind of rifle...."

I completely agree. BUT as the rest of my reply suggested, much of what we're talking about here is well outside the realm of events that "make sense." I suspect that some folks-- whether criminal or not-- will always rise to the occasion and find novel varieties of stupid.

[iverglas]

43. i c u

but I'm still not seeing a reply to post 25:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=170803



You wanna see a drubbing, mike_c? Go on over. ;)

[gorfle]

47. Perhaps it's because

Very few people had the patience to wade through 4 pages of verbage to get to the 4 lines of things you actually endorse?

[Howzit]

60. There are millions of handguns in circulation in the US

How many of them are used in crimes, ever? What % is that?

You are misguided focusing on the tool when you should be looking at the intent and the motivation for that intent:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=171108&mesg_id=171287

[rdenney]

81. No one needs a gun like that except soldiers on a battlefield. Period!

You cant tell me you need a gun like that for hunting.

[pipoman]

82. I don't own a gun like that and probably never will

but what difference does it make if he owns one? It functions EXACTLY like many traditional hunting arms which have been popular for over 100 years.

People don't NEED many, many things which they do own. Private swimming pools account for more deaths among kids 0-14 than guns, motorcycles and atvs account for many deaths, sports injuries account for many, yet I don't see anyone arguing for bans on them or assured criminal charges being brought against the parents of these kids who die in them. If need were the threshold many many things would/could be banned.

[Howzit]

83. And you don't need high speed internet access when dial-up will do

The difference is that the AR-15 isn't "faster" or more powerful than more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. In fact, the AR-15 uses a pip-squeak caliber not suitable for hunting 100 lb antelope. The .223 or 5.56 mm is used because it allows the soldier to carry more ammo and has low recoil. The caliber is popular with civilians because the ammo is comparatively cheap, AR-15 rifles are accurate and have low recoil.

[rdenney]

86. In other words the AR-15 is an excellent people-killing tool. Very interesting, but it

doesn't bode well for your argument for keeping one, considering that
it is no good for hunting game, only killing people.

[maxidivine]

88. please read my post

AR-15 pattern rifles are perfect for competitive sport shooting, hunting predators, and home defense (since there are many bullet styles in .223 caliber that break up well inside the target, minimizing the chance of the bullet exiting the target and going god-knows-where).

Also, they are fun.

And I know you don't like the idea that government actors must sometimes be put in their place, but it does happen.
SUch as in the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, which took place in 1946.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen_press.htm


http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

[maxidivine]

89. Battle of Athens

The Battle of Athens
2 AUGUST 1946
I. Introduction
On 2 August 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest, open elections. For years they had asked for state or Federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud -- forged ballots, secret ballot counts, and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies -- by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans' absolute refusal to knuckle-under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government. These Americans had a choice. Their state's Constitution - Article 1, Section 26 - recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few "gun control" laws had been enacted.

II. The Setting
These Americans were Tennesseeans of McMinn County, located between Chattanooga and Knoxville, in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah.

McMinn Countians had long been independent political thinkers. They also had long:

accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the Sheriff to overlook illicit whiskey-making and gambling;
financed the sheriff's department from fines - usually for speeding or public drunkenness - which promoted false arrests;
put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and Republicans.
Tennessee State law barred voting fraud:

ballot boxes had to be shown to be empty before voting;
poll-watchers had to be allowed;
armed law enforcement officers were barred from polling places;
ballots had to be counted where any voter could watch.
III. The Circumstances
The Great Depression had ravaged McMinn County. Drought broke many farmers; workforces shrank. The wealthy Cantrell family, of Etowah, backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, hoping New Deal programs would revive the local economy and help Democrats to replace Republicans in the county government. So it proved.

Paul Cantrell was elected Sheriff in the 1936, 1938, and 1940 elections, but by slim margins. The Sheriff was the key County official. Cantrell was elected to the State Senate in 1942 and 1944; his chief deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff. In 1946, Paul Cantrell again sought the Sheriff's office.

IV. World War II Ends; Paul Cantrell's Troubles Begin
At end-1945, some 3,000 battle-hardened veterans returned to McMinn County. Sheriff Mansfield's deputies had brutalized many in McMinn County; the GIs held Cantrell politically responsible for Mansfield's doings. Early in 1946, some newly-returned ex-GIs decided:

to challenge Cantrell politically;
to offer an all ex-GI, non-partisan ticket;
to promise a fraud-free election.
In ads and speeches the GI candidates promised:

an honest ballot count;
reform of county government.
At a rally, a GI speaker said, "'The principals that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county.'" (Daily Post-Athenian, 17 June 1946, p. 1).

At end-July 1946, 159 McMinn County GIs petitioned the FBI to send election monitors. There was no response. The Department of Justice had not responded to McMinn Countians' complaints of election fraud in 1940, 1942, and 1944.

V. From Ballots to Bullets
The election was held on 1 August. To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed "deputies". GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African-American voter, was told by a Sheriff's deputy, "'Nigger, you can't vote here today!!'". Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted; the enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been "shot in the back"; he later recovered. (C. Stephen Byrum, The Battle of Athens; Paidia Productions, Chattanooga TN, 1987; pp. 155-57).

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot count "public". A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. "The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, "his gun raised high ...shouted: 'You sons-of-bitches cross this street and I'll kill you!'" (Byrum, p. 165).

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack, by the "people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history." (Byrum, pp. 168-69).

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard Armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols, and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war's end.

By eight p.m., a group of GIs and "local boys" headed for the jail to get the ballot boxes. They occupied high ground facing the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail's defenders an easy way out.

VI. The Battle of Athens
Three GIs - alerting passersby to danger - were fired on from the jail. Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire. Those inside the jail mainly used pistols; they also had a "tommy gun" (a .45 caliber Thompson sub-machine gun).

Firing subsided after 30 minutes: ammunition ran low and night had fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent radios, the GIs' rifle fire was un-coordinated. "From the hillside, fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply 'shooting at the jail'." (Byrum, p. 189).

Several who ventured into "no man's land", the street in front of the jail, were wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered. Most sheriff's deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs.

At about 2 a.m. on 2 August, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs county threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail's porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, almost having been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield's deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned: the GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sun-up.

VII. The Aftermath: Restoring Democracy in McMinn County
In five precincts free of vote fraud, the GI candidate for Sheriff, Knox Henry, won 1,168 votes to Cantrell's 789. Other GI candidates won by similar margins.

The GIs did not hate Cantrell. They only wanted honest government. On 2 August, a town meeting set up a three-man governing committee. The regular police having fled, six men were chosen to police Athens; a dozen GIs were sent to police Etowah. In addition, "Individual citizens were called upon to form patrols or guard groups, often led by a GI. ...To their credit, however, there is not a single mention of an abuse of power on their behalf." (Byrum, p. 220).

Once the GI candidates' victory had been certified, they cleaned-up county government:

the jail was fixed;
newly-elected officials accepted a $5,000 pay limit;
Mansfield supporters who resigned, were replaced.
The general election on 5 November passed quietly. McMinn Countians, having restored the Rule of Law, returned to their daily lives. Pat Mansfield moved back to Georgia. Paul Cantrell set up an auto dealership in Etowah. "Almost everyone who knew Cantrell in the years after the 'Battle' agree that he was not bitter about what had happened." (Byrum, pp. 232-33; see also New York Times, 9 August 1946, p. 8).

VIII. The Outsiders' Response
The Battle of Athens made national headlines. Most outsiders' reports had the errors usual in coverage of large-scale, night-time events. A New York Times editorialist on 3 August savaged the GIs, who:

"...quite obviously - though we hope erroneously - felt that there was no city, county, or State agency to whom they could turn for justice.

... "There is a warning for all of us in the occurrence...and above all a warning for the veterans of McMinn County, who also violated a fundamental principle of democracy when they arrogated to themselves the right of law enforcement for which they had no election mandate. Corruption, when and where it exists, demands reform, and even in the most corrupt and boss-ridden communities there are peaceful means by which reform can be achieved. But there is no substitute, in a democracy, for orderly process." (NYT, 3 Aug 1946, p. 14.)

The editorialist did not see:

McMinn Countians' many appeals for outside help;
some ruthless people only respect force;
that it was wrong to equate use of force by evil-doers (Cantrell and Mansfield) with the righteous (the GIs).
The New York Times:

never saw that Cantrell and Mansfield's wholesale election fraud, enforced at gun-point, trampled the Rule of Law;
feared citizens' restoring the Rule of Law by armed force.
Other outsiders, e.g., Time and Newsweek, agreed. (See Time, 12 August 1946, p. 20; Newsweek, 12 Aug 1946, p. 31 and 9 September 1946, p. 38).

The 79th Congress adjourned on 2 August 1946, when the Battle of Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings, Jr., from Tennessee decried:

McMinn County's sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield;
the Justice Department's repeated failures to help the McMinn Countians.
Jennings was delighted that "...at long last decency and honesty, liberty and law have returned to the fine county of McMinn...". (Congressional Record, House; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946; Appendix, Volume 92, Part 13, p. A4870.)

IX. The Lessons of Athens
Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee:

wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our Constitutional order;
had repeatedly tried to get Federal or State election monitors;
used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers;
showed little malice to the defeated law-breakers;
restored lawful government.
The Battle of Athens clearly shows:

how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force;
why the Rule of Law requires unrestricted access to firearms;
how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of "law and order".
Dictators believe that public order is more important than the Rule of Law. However, Americans reject this idea. Criminals can exploit for selfish ends, the use armed force to restore the Rule of Law. But brutal political repression - as practiced by Cantrell and Mansfield - is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.

Since 1915, officials of seven governments "gone bad" have committed genocide, murdering at least 56 million persons, including millions of children. "Gun control" clears the way for genocide by giving governments "gone bad" far greater freedom to commit mass murder.

Law-abiding McMinn Countians won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control". McMinn Countians showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the Rule of Law. We are all in their debt.

[iverglas]

92. nice to see there's *something* gets 'em riled up enough to revolt

Not sure where your text came from, but the Wiki article that resembles it has this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

There were several beer joints and honky-tonks around Athens; we were pretty wild; we started having trouble with the law enforcement at that time because they started making a habit of picking up GIs and fining them heavily for most anything—they were kind of making a racket out of it.

After long hard years of service—most of us were hard-core veterans of World War II—we were used to drinking our liquor and our beer without being molested. When these things happened, the GIs got madder—the more GIs they arrested, the more they beat up, the madder we got …

The moral of the story:

Don't get between a GI and his beer, or you may be facing armed revolution ...

Conversely ... drunks + guns ...


Is it common for poll-watchers in the US to get shot / beaten up these days?

[maxidivine]

98. barely covering how out of context

you made that quote. Even in the quote you show that it had nothing to do with drinking, it was about the harassment and mistreatment by the local law enforcement that exacerbated the entire situation.

This was a situation in which local government was challenged at the ballot box, the way they were conducting the voting and the counting was clearly wrong, and they were quite plainly attempting to fix the election. The GIs fought back against their abuses of power, and won, even though the sheriffs deputies got reinforcements.

The lesson- Never attempt to disenfranchise GIs. They won't put up with it.

[rdenney]

96. What has this to do with anything? I don't want armed thugs descending on main street armed to the .

teeth with these kind of weapons weapons.. Do you?

Battle of Athens, my @$$ !!

[Howzit]

94. All guns are people killing tools if that is what you choose to use them for

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=171108&mesg_id=171287

The AR-15 is not the preferred tool for those soldiers currently in Iraq. They want something with a larger hole in the front so that their targets stop fighting back immediately on being shot. The .223 (5.56 mm NATO) also lacks the ability to punch through even light building material. However, this same shortcoming makes it an excellent choice for SWAT and home defense - much less likely to kill another person in an adjoining room than even a 9 mm pistol round.

AR-15s are not normally used to hunt edible game, but they are used for pests and are useful in home and homestead defence. You may consider hunting the only justification for owning a gun, but your opinion is just that.

Others may differ with you on the AR-15 being good for killing people, as the military version was originally intended to wound the enemy in Vietnam. The theory was that taking care of wounded soldiers occupies other soldiers and keeps them from fighting.

What if someone wants an AR-15 only to shoot paper targets? Allowing them a Mini-14 but not a AR-15 is like allowing someone to own a Honda Goldwing but not a Harley Davidson V-rod. Why limit the legal use of the AR-15 artificially because of cosmetics or semantics?

This San Jose cop explains what an assault weapon is and is not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

EDIT: The video shows the effect of cosmetics from 6 minutes in.

[Howzit]

95. You would allow "hunting rifles" but not "assault rifles". Watermellons don't seem to agree...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw&feature=related

[benEzra]

106. The AR-15 lacks one important attribute for criminal use---it is not concealable.

In other words the AR-15 is an excellent people-killing tool.

Except the AR-15 lacks one important attribute for most criminal use---it is not concealable. An AR-15 with an adjustable-length stock, the shortest legal barrel, and a flash suppressor is around 32 inches long with the stock collapsed to the shortest possible position; an AR with a nonadjustable stock is even longer. It is also eight or ten inches high, two or three inches thick, weighs six to eight pounds, and is quite bulky. And that is without a magazine inserted.

A 9mm pistol and 40 rounds of ammunition in loaded magazines will fit in your front pockets, weigh a pound or less, and go unnoticed under a T-shirt. An AR-15, on the other hand, isn't even realistically concealable under a trench coat (it would still print).

Size, and the resulting lack of discreet portability, is IMO the primary reason why rifles are so rarely misused. All rifles put together (including AR-15's, civilian AK's, SKS's, FAL's, lever-actions, bolt-actions, .22's, and all the rest) account for only half as many murders each year as shoes and bare hands.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2006
Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon (column totals)
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

it doesn't bode well for your argument for keeping one, considering that
it is no good for hunting game, only killing people.

Only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners is a hunter. The AR-15 is the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States, so one could argue that there is even more justification for the right to own an AR-15 than a deer rifle, from that standpoint.



And while it is true that the most popular AR-15 caliber (.223 Remington) is only suitable for hunting relatively small game like prairie dogs, groundhogs, and coyotes, you can buy upper receivers that convert it to deer and elk hunting calibers. The bigger calibers are a lot more expensive to shoot, though, so most AR's are .223.

[maxidivine]

85. What makes that gun suitable for battlefield use?

And what type of hunting would that gun be unsuitable for? because I can think of some hunting it would be perfect for.

Namely hunting predators like coyotes and malicious varmints like groundhogs and prairie dogs, which, while little and cute, cause damage to crops, and the most economical, effective, and selective means to eliminate them is to get set up with a nice AR-15, a good scope, like the Trijicon ACOG he has on his, and shoot them from a distance all day long.

They are actually called unsuitable for battlefield use by many soldiers and marines, because they feel that the rifle is underpowered. That is why the 6.8 SPC cartridge was developed, to give the AR-15 platform that is so ergonomically sound and accurate a healthy boost to its punch. In fact, in 6.8 SPC I think the AR-15 would make a very good general purpose hunting rifle for use on small-medium sized deer and similiar animals.

[rdenney]

97. That is a gun made for the US military for killing people. We don't want them on our streets!

[beevul]

100. You sir are dead wrong.

The M-16 is made for the military.



The AR-15 is made for civilian use.



Do have your facts in order before you commit to looking...well...that way you looked posting what you did.

[ManiacJoe]

99. Why not hunting?

Assuming suitable game for the small round, AR15-style rifles make excellent hunting rifles. However, to maximize the ammo's potential you would want a 20 inch barrel (or longer).

[Howzit]

58. The primary purpose of any firearm is determined by the brain connected to the trigger finger

of the person holding it. That person determines if the target is paper, a pest, venison or human.

If you are concerned with handguns because they are concealable, consider that a hunting rifle fired from 300 yards away is not only effectively concealed, the shooter has already escaped the scene of the crime.

Politicians don't mind if their handgun bans disarm only law abiding crime victims because they are not passing laws to prevent you from being robbed. It is obvious that lawmakers are more concerned with the possibility of people “voting from the rooftops”. Hence the handgun ban in DC and the spate of .50 cal and "assault weapon" bans.

Go and ban alcohol and see how that works out. Oh yeah, that didn't work too well the last time it was tried. The supply just went underground to be controlled by the mob. Same thing will happen with a handgun ban.

If I can't trust you with a handgun, I don't trust you with a hunting rifle. If I can trust you with a hunting rifle, I also trust you with a handgun.

[derby378]

4. I can sum it up with one word - EDUCATION

I would like to see gun safety classes offered in high schools, where students could learn all of the basics about how a gun works, how to safely handle a gun, how to avoid accidental shootings, etc. We have too many bored teens and young adults across America who, undernourished by fast food and bombarded with distorted media messages about guns, start making really stupid choices that could haunt them for the rest of their lives.

Education, education, education. Get 'em while they're young. Have the Sherriff's Department supervise the classes, especially if a field trip to the firing range is in order. Show the kids what it looks like when someone gets shot; I've seen some of the photos. Have the teachers look for any signs of poor impulse control among the students - if a kid is wisecracking in gun safety class, he's not learning how to handle a gun safely, which means the kid gets shunted into study hall and the parents get billed for their kid wasting the school district's time.

Just a few thoughts. Education is the best form of gun control I could possibly think of.

[iverglas]

15. "education is the best form of ...

recruitment, I'd say. Like the Jesuits. Get 'em when they're young, they're yours forever.

I say take the bored teens and young adults eating all that fast food and teach them how to cook. That will also go farther toward providing them with the opportunity to have fulfilling social and family lives than just about anything else you could do.

And introduce them to a few leisure activities and they might find one that sparks their interest. Hell, sports shooting could be one of them.

Using public funds to initiate all children into the marvels of gunnery ... not my idea of how I'd want my own tax dollars being spent, but there ya go.

Guns really aren't like sex. Young human beings really don't have an inborn, virtually irresistible urge to play with firearms or shoot things. Those are learned behaviours. And there is no reason in the world to be teaching them to children in schools.

[bossy22]

5. i like the way it is now

except for the '86 machine gun ban and the the mental health records problem. The there was no reason for the '86 machine gun ban- get rid of it, keep the NFA..garuntee you no increase in crime or deaths will happen.

I would like to see all states with some form of shall issue CCW- but with a sizable amount of training- i wouldnt really mind making people who want to carry a firearm go through police firearms training...ive always thought the more training the better

[liberal N proud]

8. I think guns should not be allowed in:

- a place of business unless guns are the primary business
- a public building
- schools and universities, allowing everyone to have guns isn't going to stop the crazy killers.
- people convicted of crimes with guns should be banned from owning a gun, not that it would slow them down.

Other than what does anyone have a need for an automatic assault rifle, own all the guns you want.


Edit to remove the double negative,

[maxidivine]

73. Other than what does anyone have a need for an automatic assault rifle, own all the guns you want.

"Other than what does anyone have a need for an automatic assault rifle, own all the guns you want."

You do know that automatic weapons are already so heavily regulated that your statement actually reads like this-

"own all the guns you want."

If you are confused about the phrase "semiautomatic assault weapons" it's because there is no such thing. That is political language that borrows words from technical language to come up with a thoroughly confounding phrase that people who aren't into shooting, and even some who are, will believe that whatever is being talked about concerns machine guns. It doesn't.

[Clear Blue Sky]

9. Rigorous background checks

No previous felonies or similar crimes, no serious mental problems, required education in gun safety.

[Clear Blue Sky]

10. Both guns and cars are potential lethal weapons.

A drivers license requires training and testing.

Why doesn't a gun license require the same?

[bossy22]

12. guns and cars are very similar

you both need a license in most cases to drive/carry on public property...

but on your private property- you do not need a license to drive your car- nor do you need one to own one

Must CCW have a required training regiment you need to go through- usualyl about the laws and self-defense techniques

[iverglas]

16. they're amazingly similar!!

Both fit easily in your pants pocket and can be carried/driven wherever you like without anybody ever knowing.

[gorfle]

48. Now that's a compact car!

Both fit easily in your pants pocket and can be carried/driven wherever you like without anybody ever knowing.

How do you know when you have an unlicensed driver driving around?

[derby378]

13. There is no Constitutional right to own an automobile

Guns are a different matter entirely. You may not agree with it, but that's how the Constitution reads.

[iverglas]

17. I pity you poor subjects

Apparently the only thing you have a constitutional right to own is a firearm.

One day, there you'll be -- naked, homeless, no groceries in the nonexistent cupboard, no car to sleep in even -- hell, no holster to hang your handgun in. But there the trusty handgun will be, unpried from your hands, ever read to defend ... what was it, now?

Certainly not the right to own an automobile. The gummint can come and take that thing away anytime it likes.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. Most legal gun owners are quite affluent.

Guns are expensive and a lot gun owners own more than one. So your scenario is doubtful.

David

[iverglas]

32. I'm about ready to shoot myself

You're pretending, right?

Nobody can be this consistently unable to grasp a simple idea and yet be capable of using a keyboard ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. You seem to be quite good at it.

[iverglas]

39. I'm gonna help you out again

One day, all you USAmerican subjects will be naked, homeless, foodless, appliance-less -- BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to own anything EXCEPT FIREARMS.

Thus, the gummint is at complete liberty to TAKE AWAY your clothing, houses, food, refrigerators -- EVERYTHING except FIREARMS.

If you would just TRY to follow the thread of a conversation, it might help.

Another option would be to just NOT start typing when you think you are replying to a post that makes no sense, because odds are it makes perfect sense and YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.


What I said had FUCK ALL to do with how affluent anyone is. I was NOT saying that firearms owners were somehow going to end up destitute but happy because they still had their firearms.

I was REPLYING -- it's a novel idea, but you could consider it -- to a post that said:

There is no Constitutional right to own an automobile

-- a statement so absurd that the only way to respond to it is to mock it severely.

IF there is no constitutional right in the US to own an automobile, THEN there is no constitutional right to own anything else not enumerated in your Constitution, AND THEREFORE the gummint may come and take anything of yours it likes, whenever it likes.

And if someone actually believes that, I pity him/her.

Not as much as I would pity someone who really did live in such a place, but pity nonetheless.

[mike_c]

41. I wish I could recommend this reply....

That was a masterful piece of mackerel slapping, sir. My hat is off to you! :rofl:

Note to the victim of said fish drubbing-- I'm not taking sides here, just admiring good work when I find it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. Be kind of hard to take all that away if I still have a firearm.

I guess subtlety can be lost on you also.

David

[gorfle]

49. So...

One day, there you'll be -- naked, homeless, no groceries in the nonexistent cupboard, no car to sleep in even -- hell, no holster to hang your handgun in. But there the trusty handgun will be, unpried from your hands, ever read to defend ... what was it, now?

So...your argument is because some day I might lose everything, I should not be armed to stand ready against oppression as our founding fathers intended?

[radioburning]

And you say WE live in a fantasy world? You should save a little of that pity for yourself.

You are seriously bonkers! Not to mention consumed with anger and hatred. To be honest, I'm glad YOU are not into guns-we'd probably have another Virginia Tech. on our hands...

[iverglas]

75. if only

one had a clue what bug you have up your ass this time ...

[radioburning]

93. Umm, your posts are irrational, combative, and immature. That's what. n/t

[Howzit]

101. If guns can be used by criminals to persuade others to part with their goods,

legal gun owners can use guns to maintain possession of their own goods by the same mechanism. The idea that gun owners would lose all but their guns is nonsense - those that would take property are going to visit you, the unarmed first.

[iverglas]

105. boyoboy, there are some thickos around here

Have you ever considered getting a clue of what the discussion is about before attempting to join it?


If guns can be used by criminals to persuade others to part with their goods, legal gun owners can use guns to maintain possession of their own goods by the same mechanism.

Mechanism? Mechanism? Whazzat, the trigger? If criminals can use guns with triggers, so can legal gun owners?

Are you trying to pretend that "can" means "may" ... but only some of the time?

If guns CAN be used by criminals to persuade others to part with their goods, legal gun owners MAY use guns to maintain possession of their own goods -- ?

I mean, we all know that criminals MAY NOT use firearms to commit robbery.

And we all know that a person who owns property CAN use a firearm to prevent it being stolen. If s/he happens to have a firearm.

But you seem to be saying that kinda backwards, doncha?


What.e.ver. It has nothing to do with the discussion.

The discussion went like this (with emphasis in a probably vain attempt to assist you):

derby378: There is no Constitutional right to own an automobile

me: I pity you poor subjects. Apparently the only thing you have a constitutional right to own is a firearm.

One day, there you'll be -- naked, homeless, no groceries in the nonexistent cupboard, no car to sleep in even -- hell, no holster to hang your handgun in. But there the trusty handgun will be, unpried from your hands, ever read to defend ... what was it, now?

Certainly not the right to own an automobile. The gummint can come and take that thing away anytime it likes.

Where the fuck do you see "criminals" in this conversation???

The conversation is about the constitutional right to own stuff.

derby378 made the totally fucking nutzoid assertion that there is no constitutional right to own an automobile. If there is no constitutional rigiht to own an automobile, then the gummint can pull up to your driveway right now (quick! look out the window!) and tow your car away FOR NO REASON, and there won't be a damned thing you can do about it.

And that's what this conversation is about: the loonytunes idea that there is no constitutional right to own stuff in the USofA.

(I mean that would be why the fifth amendment to your constitution says something like No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. I guess you have no right to life or liberty, either.)

What you imagined it had to do with criminals, let alone with illiterate / deceitful use of the English language, I just don't know.


The idea that gun owners would lose all but their guns is nonsense

You betcha: it, as in your "idea" here, sure is. And it's all yours, friend. Enjoy it.

those that would take property are going to visit you, the unarmed first.

Yeah. That's how those thousands and thousands and thousands of firearms got stolen from homes in the US last year ...

But I'm quaking in my mother's army boots, all the same. All unarmed and at the mercy of the bogeymen, me.

[maxidivine]

74. Because most states don't require licensing

Because it is the first step towards outright bans and confiscations, along with all the other abuses of power that follow.

[slackmaster]

20. I would make a few modifications to what we have now

1. National Firearms Act of 1934 as modified in 1986, etc.:

- Federal mandate for uniform implementation among the states, i.e. states cannot deny purchase of NFA items to anyone who qualifies under federal law.

- Reverse the closure of the Registry that was included in the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act.

2. Gun Control Act of 1968 as modified by Brady Act and various Crime Bills:

- Open up National Instant Check System so that type 03 FFLs and unlicensed people can use it to check backgrounds of buyers of used firearms,

- Mandate that states promptly report all disqualifying events, e.g. mental health adjudications, restraining orders, etc. to federal government.

- Encourage states to pro-actively disarm individuals who have been placed under domestic violence restraining orders, with federal assistance if needed.

- Actively prosecute EVERY PERSON who attempts to buy a gun but turns up listed as a prohibited person in NICS and fails to overturn the denial on appeal.

3. Concealed-Carry Permits

- National CCW license with tough but objective standards, OR

- Reciprocity among the states, just like we have for driver's licenses and marriage licenses.

[radioburning]

22. I own several guns, and I'm in favor of...

...rigorous background checks(i.e. no felons, history of serious violence, mental issues, or kids), strict penalties for illegal gun transfers, waiting periods, strong punishment for crimes involving guns. Being that I've that I've bought a fair share of firearms in California, it is my understanding that these forms of gun control are in effect here. Most new gun laws on the books politicians here in California are trying to get passed seem like they will do less to deter violent crime(that's what gun control laws are about, right?) than they will infringe upon the rights of legal gun owners. One law being proposed is an expensive yearly permit to buy ammunition and no ammunition from online, out of state dealers. Can you say instant black market for criminals? Meanwhile guys like me, who like to go to the shooting range a couple times a week, will have to pay triple for something that's already kind of expensive to begin with.

P.S. The "assault weapons ban" is truly unnecessary. Do some research, and I mean actual research with statistics-not a newspaper article on how "dangerous AR-15's are a status symbol in elementary schools across the country"-and you'll find these guns are used so minimally, compared to other non-banned weapons, in violent crimes you'll realize that these are banned because of the connotations the cosmetics evoke, but not because of their proliferation in actual crime statistics.

[ManiacJoe]

23. Both federal and state changes.

At the federal level:
- allow non-dealers to use the NICS system for background checks.
- Remove the import ban.
- Remove the machine-gun ban.

At the state level for WA state:
- Remove ban on short barrels.
- Remove the ban on silencers.

At all levels, improve the enforcement of the current laws.

The current federal list of prohibited owners is a reasonable one.

[radioburning]

25. It should also go the other way, as well...

I think that after 10 documented years of firearm ownership with no gun related infractions, and: a clean criminal record, maybe some tests, a minor fee, some paperwork signed, possibly some other hoops to jump through, you should be able to have some kind of "upgraded" firearm ownership status. Maybe something like: you could own one of the many rifles that has a barrel that is shorter than California law usually permits. Or, you could own an AR-15 without a bullet button so you could easily detach the magazine without having to use a tool. High capacity mags? How about, being that you have shown you are mature enough and responsible enough over a specific period of time to prove you are not a violent career criminal, you are automatically eligible for a CCW?
No? Is that asking for too much liberty and pursuit of happiness? Or, are all gun owners, and their guns, just criminals and tragedies that will 100% happen no matter what? Guilty until proven...well, I guess we'll just leave it at guilty for now...

[benEzra]

27. I'm OK with the point-of-sale background check for purchase...

I am OK with the point-of-sale background check for purchase. I am OK with the existing tight controls on automatic weapons (though the registry should be reopened), sound suppressed weapons, short-barreled rifles and shotguns (rifle <16", shotgun <18", 26" minimum OAL). I am OK with the existing ban on disguised firearms, M203-type grenade launchers, grenades, and weapons over .50 caliber. I am OK with most of the Gun Control Act of 1968, including the absolute ban on the possession of guns by convicted felons and those adjudicated mentally incompetent (though I'd like to see a reinstatement process for nonviolent felons to eventually regain their rights), and the tracing system. I am OK with the Kevlar-piercing ammunition ban of 1986, the ban on X-ray-transparent firearms. I am OK with requiring a license (based on statuatory criteria) in order to carry a firearm on one's person.

[matt007]

31. No Badge = No Gun

With the exception of the National Guard in a major crisis. The ONLY people who should have legal guns are Police Officers.

No Badge No Gun No Exceptions.

[iiibbb]

33. Like the ones in Philadelphia?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2359707739835784679&q=PHiladelphia+police+beating&ei=peYoSMi3LJiAqwKAwKidCg&hl=en

[iiibbb]

34. Or these model officers

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/06/12/967/24459

[iiibbb]

36. 50 shots to subdue an unarmed man.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15918902/

Yes... these guys deserve a gun more than I do.

[benEzra]

37. Your home, your choice. My home, my choice.

No Badge = No Gun

With the exception of the National Guard in a major crisis. The ONLY people who should have legal guns are Police Officers.

No Badge No Gun No Exceptions.

You can certainly make that choice for yourself.

Some of us choose differently. And as long as we are mentally competent adults with clean records, we have the right to.





----------------------
The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[happyslug]

38. So bank Guards have to be paid by the local government not the Bank?

That is what No Badge, No Guns means, your tax dollars going to protect the assets of a private company. Sorry that will not work, does NOT work in any country, for taxpayers do NOT want their tax dollars to go for the benefit of people with money (And that what will happen if "Civilians" can not have guns).

What about pests on the farm? Do you want police officers taken off duty of looking for criminals to shoot a woodchuck eating a farmer's crop? What about the Officers having to go to small farmers and helping the butcher their animals do to the fact the farmers do hot have access to guns? Now large butchers use electric stun guns, but small farmers use 22s. Do we require them to take the animal to a butcher or do we require the local police to shoot the animal for the farmer? And what about those areas that have no local police, do we require the state police to shoot the pests?

Do you want farmers to use poisons, that are not selective as to its victims, or do you want farmers to be able to shoot pests, so the farmer can see what he or she is killing and determine if it is truly a pest or something that should not be killed (Poisons are NOT that selective).

Lets us not forget about game control, which is presently done by hunters. You can not leave the deer population NOT be controlled by hunting, so Police will have to perform that function, further tyeing the Police from their main job of fighting crime (and do NOT think that you can bring back predators, under the law if the state did so, the state would have to pay any farmer who suffered a harm, i.e lost a cow, to such predators, the states will prefer NOT to become liable for such actions and NOT re-introduce natural predators).

My point is the absolute bar on private use of Firearms is as foolish as any absolute right to own firearms (i.e. do we want even the insane to be able to own a gun? Even the most pro-Second Amendment person will say no.) The issue is how much restrictions do you want on private ownership and use of firearms? Do you want minimal control? i.e. any body can have a weapon unless it is clear to all such such possession is dangerous, or do you what Maximum control, i.e. private ownership is only permitted if the private owner clearly shows a need, and then only as long as that need exists. Most people want something more in the middle, protection from misuse of firearms, but the ability for those people who need them to get them with minimal problems. Thus the debate is where to draw the line, not any ban on private ownership or absolute right for anyone to own a firearm.

[gorfle]

50. Why?

The ONLY people who should have legal guns are Police Officers.

Why do you trust people of the government to own firearms but not people of the governed to own them?

[derby378]

53. matt007, you just got pwned...

Time to shift a few paradigms. And to reread the Constitution.

[Kali]

56. uh no, I think that is kind of the whole point of the second ammendment

sometimes it is the authorities that need defending against

[iverglas]

77. "sometimes it is the authorities that need defending against"

Got any time in mind?

I'm minded of the second coming, myself, when I read this shit.

Ya gotta be prepared! It's just around the corner!

[matt007]

59. lol. you simply dont need a gun

Say what you want but its all about discretion.

Police are trained...not all are good people but ill take the best odds.
Your average Joe has no training and probably can't spell discretion. Using a firearm requires good judgment.


And as far as "taking a stand or defending yourself against the govt." What part of Ruby Ridge or Waco TX do you come from?
As if you'll be able to make a stand against dozens of armed officers/agents. lol be my guest.

[matt007]

61. I doubt you constitute a militia

"well regulated milita" doesn't mean well intentioned citizens who are defending themselves. Those two aren't mutually inclusive.


National Guard
Police
Federal Law Enf.

all state entities that could readily fit the bill of a "militia"

notice i didn't mention rent a cops/bank guards. don't put words in my mouth.

[benEzra]

63. Umm...if he's between 17 and 45 and a U.S. citizen, he is, per Federal law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The National Guard is Constitutionally part of the U.S. military, not the civilian militia. Federal law enforcement are part of the Executive Branch of the Federal government, not the militia.

FWIW, roughly a quarter of registered Dems and a third of indies own guns, mostly nonhunting guns. We'll keeping them, thanks. You are free to choose otherwise for yourself, but stay out of our gun safes.

[bossy22]

66. neither of them constitute a state milia

Federal Law Enf. is not a state entity- so i dont know how it can fit in the catagory of state milita

the Heller case is most likely going to say that the 2nd amendment applies to individuals NOT affiliated with a state militia...so if that happens your arguement goes out the window

not to mention you forgot about most of the states that have state constitutional provisions regarding the individual right to keep and bear arms

ive always said becareful about throwing away amendments you dont like or finding ways to nullify them- because someone (like bush) might just nullify the ones you hold dear...if it is interpreted to be an individual right it should be protected like the other amendments- not doing so leaves the other amendments open to dangerous infringement..

once you break the dam you can't control the flow of water- so lets try not to break the dam

[maxidivine]

71. None of the above

Could in any way constitute a militia. Because they are all government groups.

"National Guard
Police
Federal Law Enf.

all state entities that could readily fit the bill of a "militia""

Especially not federal law enforcement or the National Guard, no federalized force could ever hope to be our militia.

And "well regulated" does not mean what you think it means. I believe you are thinking that regulated means regulation the way the FCC regulates radio or the TSA regulates flight paths. It actually means well trained and equipped. And the militia is every male age 18-45. The sentence meant that our militia, i.e. our citizens, needed to be armed and proficient in the use of their personal arms in order to keep our state free. By definition a government organization can not be considered a militia.

[matt007]

79. What you want a non gov militia?

Look around Einsteins..... Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, The Balkans in the 90's, Most of Latin Am. in the 80s and 90's, Africa, etc.


Do you really think militias work? If they arent defeated outright they just cause instability. That means making peoples lives miserable. You can play G.I. Joe with your guns if you want but do you honestly think you would have a chance in hell against a Swat team?

we have police, state troopers, and the national guard. ALL of those are a WELL REGULATED militia.

So yes please make a stand against the govt. i beg of you. The sooner your vigilante indulgence takes you out of the gene pool the better we will all be.

[bossy22]

80. a swat team?

armed with the same weaponry as a civilian....approaching a fortified position.....id have to bet on the civilians

This idea that police are some magical powerful forces is beyond me....they often have to get large numbers just to take on 1 guy....if there was a 12 i dont know what would happen....they don't have any magical power or skill....one man in a fortified house can keep an entire swat team at bay

actually there are many private militia's in this country...and you don't see them starting any problems

are you sure you are using the right definition of Well Regulated- in some instances well-regulated could just mean bearing the proper arms

then again the supreme court is probably going to rule that the 2A applies to ALL INDIVIDUALS REGARDLESS OF BEING ENROLLED IN A STATE MILITIA....that would kinda throw your arguement out the window

[matt007]

90. lol right whatever.....

Name me some private militias that are benign.

of course the supreme court will rule tha way. Have you looked at who sits on it?

[matt007]

91. as for wt u think about swat teams

Thats delusional. You wouldnt last an hour. Do me a favor and read up on Waco TX and Ruby Ridge.

[maxidivine]

87. What is a gov militia?

"we have police, state troopers, and the national guard. ALL of those are a WELL REGULATED militia."

All of those, while they fulfill the description of "well-regulated" that was used when the Constitution was written, can not be construed as a militia.

In fact, any individual holding public office or employment in the government was excluded from militia duty, and do you know why?

Because that would create a conflict of interest in many of the situations in which the militia would be useful. The militia isn't something you join because you want to, the militia is something you are a part of from the day you turn seventeen until the day you turn forty-five, or until you renounce your citizenship.

Sorry dude but being a citizen is being a part of the militia.

Well-regulated did not mean that there is regulatory oversight from the government, it meant well trained and equipped.

So yes, the National Guard is quite well regulated. However, the National Guard ceased to even be a quasi-militia entity the day it was federalized under the Department of the Army.
Federal Government and Citizen Militia don't mix, they never have, and they never will.

[bossy22]

65. and you simply

don't need a TV....basing legalities on need gets you into dangerous waters

Police training in most areas are just silly- learn what a gun is, safety, fire at a target 10 feet away....a blind man could do that

most CCW permit holders are trained and practice with their weapon

[gorfle]

51. Acceptable gun control

Before we can debate about what constitutes "acceptable" gun control, we have to come to an agreement about why people should own firearms at all.

It is pretty clear why the second amendment enumerated our right to bear arms in our Constitution. Our founding fathers feared an over-powerful central federal government. The intent was for The People to make up the bulk of the country's standing army, thus eliminating or countering the federal standing army. In this way the people of the states were to make up the infantry portion of our country's military, able to stand up to aggression both from without and within.

It is essential that agreement come on the above concept, otherwise no meaningful debate can happen concerning reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms. For example, if you believe firearms are only suitable for hunting, then a completely different set of restrictions would be appropriate than if you believe firearms are to be used as military arms.

I, of course, believe the concept I described above is the correct one concerning the mind frame of our founding fathers concerning private firearm ownership. Given that, I believe:

1) Any firearm restriction must not compromise the anonymity of firearm owners. If the government keeps lists of firearm owners, then they are much much less a threat to an oppressive government, as such a government has an instant shopping list for who's houses to raid to seize weapons.

2) I believe that if you wish to carry a firearm on your person in public, concealed or otherwise, then you should be required to obtain a permit to do so. This permit should be granted using a "shall issue" procedure, and should include a comprehensive background check.

3) I believe all firearms suitable for infantry use in the United States Army should be suitable for civilian use. After all, the entire point of civilian firearm ownership is so that they can counter United States Army infantry power. I am willing to compromise on this point and say that only semi-automatic weapons should be in general circulation, unless a special permit is acquired.

4) I could possibly believe in background checks for all firearm transfers. However, there should be no record kept as to whether the firearm transfer actually happened or not. In this manner all citizens have plausible deniability as to whether or not they actually own a firearm, should the government move to confiscate them. One could simply say they underwent a background check to buy a firearm, but ended up not buying it. Background checks should compare the applicant against all known persons prohibited from owning a firearm. I am happy with the NICS current criteria for being disallowed from owning a firearm, but there needs to be better record keeping of people known to be mentally unfit to own firearms.

[mike_c]

52. this is the militia argument....

Ironically, I agree fundamentally with most of your points, yet I'm a strong gun control advocate, even to the point of favoring the virtual elimination of firearms from private ownership in America.

I'm not sure how to best explain this cognitive disconnect. The primary issue for me is that the second amendment, as you've framed it (and I agree with your perspective) no longer seems to apply to the fundamental issues it was meant to address, so we're left with a county awash in guns that are not serving their essential constitutional purpose.

First, the use most guns in private ownership are put to, if they're used violently against other people, is to escalate petty civil violence to lethal levels. That includes guns used for most "self protection." We could spend hours discussing that issue alone but the short version is that most violence is non-lethal, most of the time, if humans are left to relatively bare-handed means of doing mayhem. Remember that firearms revolutionized war even in one of the most violent times in human history, and life in civil society today, at least in this country, doesn't even approach the violence of those times. So we kill one another with guns to defend ourselves against petty violence of the bloody nose variety, or to protect ourselves from being robbed of cheap consumer goods manufactured by the millions in China-- or to commit those crimes. It is utterly senseless.

Second, and perhaps most important, an armed populace has completely failed to prevent the oppression our founding fathers feared when they penned the second amendment. I would be writing a very different opinion tonight if we lived in the society they envisioned, where free state militias-- the people's standing army you described-- actually balanced the strength of the federal government and provided checks against federal oppression. As I mentioned up thread, those founding fathers would likely be appalled by the state of government in America today, and would demand to know why an armed citizenry allowed this to happen. So the essential purpose for the second amendment has apparently failed. If it isn't to be salvaged, we're left with the situation described in the paragraph above, and no good reason for that armed citizenry except to facilitate stupid violence against one another.

[gorfle]

69. In what way does it no longer apply?

I'm not sure how to best explain this cognitive disconnect. The primary issue for me is that the second amendment, as you've framed it (and I agree with your perspective) no longer seems to apply to the fundamental issues it was meant to address, so we're left with a county awash in guns that are not serving their essential constitutional purpose.

In what way does the second amendment no longer apply? Are the concerns of an over-powerful federal government, and the ability of the people to resist, no longer applicable?

First, the use most guns in private ownership are put to, if they're used violently against other people, is to escalate petty civil violence to lethal levels. That includes guns used for most "self protection." We could spend hours discussing that issue alone but the short version is that most violence is non-lethal, most of the time, if humans are left to relatively bare-handed means of doing mayhem. Remember that firearms revolutionized war even in one of the most violent times in human history, and life in civil society today, at least in this country, doesn't even approach the violence of those times. So we kill one another with guns to defend ourselves against petty violence of the bloody nose variety, or to protect ourselves from being robbed of cheap consumer goods manufactured by the millions in China-- or to commit those crimes. It is utterly senseless.

While it is arguably true that most hand-to-hand violence is likely to be non-lethal, what it also means is that all of us are at the mercy of anyone stronger than we are. The old adage, "God created man, Sam Colt made them equal" certainly rings true to me.

To me, the fact that some few, roughly 2%, firearm owners do bad things with them annually is not sufficient justification for eliminating them concerning the abilities they enable us to have.

To me, it was and is a mistake to couple crime to the firearm rights debate. No matter how bad crime gets, it is insufficient justification for the removal of the arms of the people which places them at the mercy of their government. Whatever side-effects we have to deal with because of our right to bear arms, so be it. The fact of the matter remains, however, that over 98% of firearm owners don't engage in criminal behavior with their firearms annually.

Second, and perhaps most important, an armed populace has completely failed to prevent the oppression our founding fathers feared when they penned the second amendment. I would be writing a very different opinion tonight if we lived in the society they envisioned, where free state militias-- the people's standing army you described-- actually balanced the strength of the federal government and provided checks against federal oppression. As I mentioned up thread, those founding fathers would likely be appalled by the state of government in America today, and would demand to know why an armed citizenry allowed this to happen. So the essential purpose for the second amendment has apparently failed. If it isn't to be salvaged, we're left with the situation described in the paragraph above, and no good reason for that armed citizenry except to facilitate stupid violence

Your argument is that because the people have not become sufficiently motivated to engage in rebellion yet means that they will never have cause to do so. I reject that argument. The fact of the matter is, most people today still believe in the system, and we should all be thankful for it. The day the population at large loses faith in the system and turns away from the ballot box in favor of the cartridge box will be a dark day indeed.

As bad as things may seem now, the fact is the system does still work and we have one of the best functioning representative governments in the world. Moreover, even for the doomsayers, if things are so terrible now what recourse will you wish for if things get even worse?

[Irreverend IX]

76. If the crime rate is what motivates you to support gun control...

Why not work for drug legalization instead? The drug war is one of the main root causes of violent crime in the US, whereas gun control only attempts to suppress one symptom of the problem. And gun control is a huge loser issue for Democrats, whereas most people with half a brain are realizing that the drug laws are totally fucked. I've seen gun forums with mostly conservative members where the topic of drugs has come up and most posters, including some cops, say they want to see the drug laws relaxed. Lots of young people are on board with the idea and it appeals to both liberals and libertarians; only the Jesus freaks don't like it.

[TomHansley]

54. Don't ban firearms because they're black and mean looking!

I find it hilarious that in NY and CA and a few other states "assault rifles" are banned because they're black and mean looking! OMG!


Fact is, an AR-15 (looks just like an M16) is the EXACT SAME THING as a Ruger Mini-14 (standard hunting rifle), both are semi-auto, both shoot .223 ammo, both have detachable clips, but because the AR-15 is black and mean looking, its banned in NY and CA and folks there have to get neutered versions because of some mid-90's "save the children" mentality.

Lord help me if my AR-15 has an "evil illegal feature" like a bayonet mount, I'm guessing some politician out there fears getting stabbed with a gun more than getting shot.

And BTW, responding to another post:

There are NO semi-auto rifles that are "designed to kill people"... rifles are designed to shoot things far away. NO self-respecting army would ever use a semi-auto only gun for their troops.

[mike_c]

57. that's likely one of my comments you're referring to....

...and as I mentioned elsewhere, I completely agree about single-shot or semi-auto rifles in most cases, but not necessarily regarding "legal versions" of assault rifles, e.g. semi-auto or magazine modified SKS, M4, AK47. My comments were mostly directed toward easily concealed weapons, particularly handguns. BTW, I wasn't aware that the AR-15 is "the exact same thing" as a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle. I've mostly seen it described as the "civilian variant of the M-16 carbine."

Anyway, my-- or anyone else's-- ignorance of specific regulations or of gun models shouldn't be used to dodge the fundamental need for dialog about ways to curb unnecessary gun violence in this country. Nonetheless I do appreciate having my misunderstandings and misperceptions corrected by more knowledgeable folks!

[benEzra]

64. The AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14 are functionally identical,

firing the same ammunition at the same rate of fire, with the same range of magazine capacities. The mini-14 has the magazine catch at the rear of the magazine instead of the side, but there are aftermarket magazines that will work in both guns.

The AR-15 is considerably more accurate, though, which is why it is the most popular centerfire target rifle in America (and why I sold my mini-14).

[bossy22]

67. AR-15

is for all practical purposes- the same gun as a Mini-14

that was teh silliness in the law

I see no problem owning civilian versions of military rifles- why does it matter what "dress" it has on

[radioburning]

70. This is how discussions in the gungeon can be helpful.

Cheers to you mike_c for looking at this objectively, and not just using this forum to piss on people, points of view or ideas you can't relate to. The general public sees politicians and police holding AR's and AK's, talking about the tidal wave of gun violence they're causing, and America says "we gotta get rid of these fully automatic machine guns so nobody gets killed anymore!" Thanks for not taking it personally when us gun guys point out why some of these gun control laws are frustrating, brainless, and do nothing to bring down violent crime. You're right about the need to find ways to curb unnecessary gun violence in America, and I don't think anybody-even us violent right wing gun thugs that only care about right to own weapons of mass destruction, will disagree with you.

[old mark]

68. Where I live, laws are not to bad at this time...

...I can buy what I want, as many as I want, same day, no waiting period, no "1 gun a month" bullshit. I can buy any long gun or handgun I can afford. I also have a license to carry a firearm, and I carry a gun every time I leave the house.

I would really like to see stricter enforcement of existing laws regarding felons caught with guns-most of these cases are plea bargained away to nothing.
I would like to see no early release for violent crime using any type of weapon, not just guns.
Put the dopers in treatment programs,not prisons-leave the prisons for violent criminals and let them stay there for their full terms.

I really hate that the Democratic Party is seen as the party of gun control. It is not, and should not be.

mark

[Dukkha]

78. a bipod

provides adequate control for me

[sir pball]

84. Only with

a sand sock :)

[OffWithTheirHeads]

102. Personally, I am a proponent of using both hands

Gun control is difficult with only one hand unless you are shooting really small caliber stuff.

[Xela]

103. Some thoughts

On the current situation, some laws as OK, some I would do without or revisit.

Background checks at POS is OK. But don't mess with individuals at gun shows.

Also, all this talk about "assault weapons" (89, 1994) and such I would like to do without. No limits on mag capacity, type of firearm to be imported, etc.

I would also like to have the NFA (machine gun laws) revisited. Make full autos available without the tax, and with no more regulations than a regular/semiauto firearm.

Castle doctrine laws sounds like a good idea across states.

Regarding CCW, it would be great if Vermont's example was found across the nation.

All of this of course would require proactive implementation of firearm education in schools and such. I would be open to federally funded firearm education in schools.

I would like to see that resident aliens were allowed to join the CMP as an alternative to military service, or perhaps their membership could be used as an incentive to speed up their citizenship paperwork.

Xela

[Wcross]

104. Any hit on the four ring or higher is acceptable gun control.

[class2068]

107. Little.

Law-abiding citizens over 18 who are not diagnosed with a dangerous mental illness should be allowed to buy, keep, and carry guns, period.

[AlinPA]

108. A guy in my sportmens' club said "gun control means using two hands".