Where do you stand on banning guns?

[TPaine7]

60 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Things should stay basically as they are--semiauto handguns and rifles legal, no limits on ammo capacity, strict regulation of machine guns, short barrelled shotguns and the like.
	40 (67%)
	Ban all handguns except for the police, armed guards, on-duty military.
	0 (0%)
	Ban all handguns AND rifles except for the police, armed guards, on-duty military.
	7 (12%)
	Private citizens should only be able to possess gun technology as it existed at the Founding.
	1 (2%)
	Everywhere should be like New York or Chicago--special, expensive permission from the authorities to possess guns.
	1 (2%)
	Ordinary folks should be able to own guns as they can now except after psych evaluation and with spousal consent.
	1 (2%)
	People in the National Guard or militiary reserve should be able to keep their locked and unloaded weapons at home with strictly enforced penalties for accessing them. No other private citizens should have guns.
	0 (0%)
	Other (explain below).
	10 (17%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Trunk Monkey]

1. I would re open the NFA registry

and apply the full faith and credit clause to concealed carry. Beyond that I think we're good

[TPaine7]

2. NFA is a real difference. CCW reciprocity is outside the scope of the poll;

the poll is only about banning/ownership.

I agree with you about CCW reciprocity, by the way.

[HALO141]

58. +1

[Arctic Dave]

3. I say ban them all, just because I like seeing the nutters twist.

BAN! BAN! BAN!


Start your panty twisting now.

[TPaine7]

5. I think I'll pass, as long as you guys stay as powerful as you are now, LOL.

Not that you don't bear watching, mind you, but you're not a real concern right now.

[-..__...]

13. I can play that game too...

lets make our guns laws like Somaila's, Sudans or Pakistans.

I always thought it would be pretty cool to frequent open air bazaars chock full of full-auto goodies, antipersonnel mines, rocket launchers and fragmentation grenades.

I mean... how can you possibly beat a bargain like picking up an RPG or AKM (slightly used... shows some battle wear), in trade for a goat or a few chickens or a couple of cartons of Marlboro lites?

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. Wow you just rendered both your vote AND your opinion totally meaningless and irrelevent.

How dumb is that?

So if "ban them all" is simply for show... how do you really feel (not that it matters now)?

[Arctic Dave]

64. LOL. Because a internet poll is meaningful how?

If someone wants to put a turd in the punchbowl, whats wrong with a little bit of pee?

[TPaine7]

6. How does that differ from the third choice? Isn't the National Guard the military, and aren't they

the "well regulated militia" in your thinking?

[TPaine7]

12. How did the NRA mislead the Supreme Court in the 1800s and the Framers of the 14th Amendment?

The very first time the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment, it called the right to keep and bear arms along with the right of free speech, religion and others "rights of person." They are personal rights, not rights of states or militias.

The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, also apparently need correcting; they thought the Second Amendment right was personal as well.

I have explained all of this in excruciating detail before, for example here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=300206&mesg_id=300331

If you had a time machine, how would you correct the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? How would you get them to see the error of their ways?

There's more. You apparently don't understand the way legal documents were, and still are, interpreted. Sometimes "average {21st century} reading comprehension skills" are insufficient for 18th century (or even 21st century) legal documents.

[gejohnston]

15. the worst part of your point

is the first sentence, since we already have gun regulations, including five federal ones, three of which was supported by the NRA.

[TPaine7]

20. Everything you said was false, except for opinion.

The NRA maintains the status quo misreading

The current understanding of the Second Amendment is at least essentially the same as held by the Supreme Court the first time it spoke on the matter (and many other times). The NRA agrees with that essential reading ( according to their briefs and published opinions) but their opinion is not authoritative. They didn't write the historic Supreme Court opinions that spoke about the Second Amendment from the 1800s up till today.

Refusing to allow any regulation, even though "well regulated" is specifically mentioned.

That's just factually false; the NRA has supported regulation.

So anyone with the cash can purchase any weapon the market has to offer which results in the never ending bloodshed and massacres this nation has actually become used to, to the point where they're expected.

Have you no respect for the truth? This is a blatant falsehood; there are many illegal weapons, and no convicted, disqualified felon can legally buy a 22 pistol, no matter how much money he has, nor can someone adjudicated mentally incompetent.

Legal documents from the 18th Century need reinterpretation in the 21st Century...

This is not false, it is simply a very revealing opinion. The Constitution should be reinterpreted--not amended!--to agree with your policy preferences.

...even if they weren't misinterpreted to begin with, which these were.

The Second Amendment was misinterpreted by the Supreme Court in its first statement on the subject, and by the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment--authors of the Constitution. We know this because you say so, and because the way they interpreted it disagrees with you.

The early Supreme Court, the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, the rules of legal interpretation and the current Supreme Court are all wrong. You, however, are correct in your interpretation.

And the NRA has a stranglehold on any regulation despite the continuing gun violence and massacres.

Again, this is your opinion, informed as it is by your keen insight, calm deliberation and historical knowledge.

[tortoise1956]

39. Methinks thou doth not comprehend the meaning of "well-regulated"

as it was used in the 18th century.

The term meant to fine tune something, to hone it. For example, pianos were regulated, and an in-tune piano was referred to as "well-regulated". That was the most common usage of the term as late as the beginning of the 20th century, and is still in use by piano tuners. This information is available on the internet - try the following sites:

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
http://www.vanderpiano.com/regulate.html

Or do your own research. An unbiased check will uncover exactly what I have stated. Hell, I didn't even add quotes from the framers of the constitution to demonstrate how it was used to describe a well-trained army.

Now, you can choose not to believe the Oxford English dictionary if you so desire. That still doesn't change the fact that no matter what, the preamble is a prefatory clause meant to describe the reason for, and the intent of, the amendment. It doesn't limit the main body of the amendment, unless you are willing to argue that this is the only place in the constitution where the term "the people" doesn't apply to the entire population...

[xxenderwigginxx]

87. you are mis-defining the word regulated.

you are mis-defining the word regulated. As used by the writers of the 2nd it is defined : to make properly functioning , orderly, disciplined and quite predictable, as in, to regulate a clock. It has nothing to do with control, it just meant that the people should train with their weapons. You're trying to apply the word "regulation" as we use it now to "regulate" as the writers used it then. Words change, or have multiple meanings. The word "regulate" wasn't used as you are defining it until 1828. See: Websters Dictionary 1806 & 1828, & Dictionary of Word Origins by John Ayto. Of course, I guess its possible when your physician advises you to maintain a well regulated colon, he thinks you should give control of your body functions to the fed.

[Travis_0004]

23. Isn't it obvious?

The NRA misled the supreme court 70 years before it was in existence.

Duh.

[Trunk Monkey]

7. DU Member Francis Marion had this to say about the meaning of a weel regulated militia

facinating reading

What did 'well regulated' mean in the 18th century?Paul Revere didn't shout 'The British are coming'.

He told people 'the Regulars are out!'

Ministerial Troops- The Regulars... professional soldiers of considerable military skill. Regulars are soldiers who are well trained, disciplined, effective in battle.

In New England, it would have been clear to any observer who watched them march, drill, or practice firing that the Kings troops were indeed well regulated.

Regular skill was, deservedly so, a British point of pride. In British and Tory correspondence, contrasts of Regulars proper martial bearing to that of 'the country people' of New England are often made. American shopkeepers, farmers, mechanics, clockmakers- to the British, they were a mob, a rabble, banditi, deserving no part of the term 'regular'. One example Tory letter writer likens an American colonial shopkeeper militiaman to a goose trying to assume an air of importance.

However, British opinion changed after April 19, 1775- the day a large body of British Regulars fought for their lives all the way from Concord back to Boston. The Regulars were not alone in military proficiency.

This changing realization dawned upon one of the Regular officers at the North Bridge. After the fight, he had a chance to write down some thoughts. While at the North Bridge, he said that he saw the Americans marching toward him 'in the most regular manner'. A modern American can easily miss the significance in this British officer's diction. Considering who was speaking, and about whom he was speaking, this is high praise. Not to mention the fact that, when they returned fire on the British, half the British officers on scene were hit.

Who were the Americans that elicited this British admission? They were probably Isaac Davis' Acton minuteman company, because that is the unit which led the American militia toward the British troops guarding the North Bridge. The Americans marched two abreast, with military bearing- and military equipment. They were not set up with hunting weapons. They had muskets which could receive a bayonet, and each man had a cartridge box. Davis, the Minuteman Captain, was a blacksmith, and he saw to it that each man had a hand made bayonet, besides a cartridge box. The cartridge box is analogous to an ammo pouch full of M16 magazines. It held the ammunition supply of the individual.

Davis made sure that his minuteman company was well-regulated. Besides making equipment for them, he had them practicing shooting on his property, weekly, for the past several months.

So the original definition of a well regulated militia describes an American well skilled in the use of a firearm, and able to march, fight, and be militarily effective under their elected officers. Today, that is a far more accurate description of your National Guardsman than it is of Joe Civilian Citizen. Nevertheless, whether Joe Civilian chooses to be derelict in his duty to be well regulated or not, the Bill of Rights makes it clear that it is the Right of The People to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia.

The wording of the Second Amendment makes the difference between a People's state and a Police state. So Joe Citizen, take it upon yourself to learn how to use an AR15 so that you'll be useful as a citizen soldier in a national emergency.

Now watch people clamor for the confiscation of your AR15, magazines, ammo.

History repeats itself, only this time, the British are our ELECTED officials.

We'll hire people to forge our shackles.

[rl6214]

27. Yeah, too bad for you the POTUS and the SCOTUS don't agree with you.

[spin]

43. Unfortunately for you and others you often use the argument ...

the highest court in the land has ruled otherwise.

You have every right to feel that the Supreme Court made a bad decision but many conservatives feel the Roe v Wade was a bad decision and despite the fact that we have had a number of conservative Supreme Courts it is still the law of the land.

[Starboard Tack]

8. No ban on gun ownership. Total ban on concealed carry.

[spin]

66. Good idea. Allowing honest citizens to legally carry concealed makes for a dangerous ...

work environment for those whose chosen profession is mugging and robbing stores.

And another large advantage is that when this measure fails to reduce violent crime and possibly causes it to rise, you can then suggest another item to ban or another victims rights law to overturn.

[Starboard Tack]

67. Now, now! Not like you to spin things like that Spin.

I did not suggest banning any items. Nor did I suggest overturning any "victims' rights law".
Let me repeat "No ban on gun ownership.
What part of that suggests banning an item or a right?

Total ban on CONCEALED carry
What part of that suggests banning an item or a right?

Now we can have a conversation if you are up to it.

[gejohnston]

68. you missed the point

banning concealed carry could make a safer environment for predators. One could look at concealed carry as a victim rights law, or certainly a potential victims rights law.

Just how does concealed carry cause social harm? Comparing El Paso to most of the world's major cities, including London, certainly does not help your cause.
El Paso's murder rate is 0.8, or about half of London's. Then there is Chicago.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-Deadliest-Global-City-163874546.html

[Starboard Tack]

84. I disagree

Concealed carry has the potential to make a safer environment, but also has the potential to make a more dangerous environment. The madness hasn't stopped, it is in full bloom and the consequences are still unknown. A little reality check tells me that Open Carry would be far more likely to create a safer environment. Plus, it would be honest. Seriously, who's gonna fuck with some guy sporting a sidearm? It's like a sign saying "IF I DON'T KNOW YOU, APPROACH AT YOUR OWN RISK!"

You ask "Just how does concealed carry cause social harm?"
An individual carrying a concealed weapon causes virtually no social harm. Imagine living in a society where the majority of individuals walked around with concealed sidearms. Is that what we really want? Is that what we consider progressive? My problem is not so much with the law or Constitution, but with the mentality and behavior of a huge chunk of the population that buys into this climate of fear and delusion. We should be way beyond that kind of social thought process.

[gejohnston]

88. someone interpreting an OC as such a sign sounds fearful and paranoid to me.

Concealed carry has the potential to make a safer environment, but also has the potential to make a more dangerous environment. The madness hasn't stopped, it is in full bloom and the consequences are still unknown.

It does neither. Vermont was "green" when it was easier to get a NYC CCW than a Wyoming one [although Wyoming was not really a may issue in the same sense NY is. From 1886-1995 it was shall issue to specific occupations such as PIs, pharmacists, MDs who made house calls etc) and no issue to everyone else. That includes all weapons such as sword canes, sling shots, and knives designed as weapons. Nonresidents visiting God's Country still need a CCW for any of those items as well as pistols. But I digress] Washington state and a few others have been "shall issue" at least a couple of decades before Florida liberalized theirs. So we have a pretty good idea. We also know that the Czech Republic and Bulgaria don't have shoot outs in the street any more than much of Europe did before stricter gun laws are in place. We do know, Chicago is worse the Mexico City. We also know El Paso has half the murder rate of London. Either way, I seriously doubt more than one or two percent of Wyomingites or Vermonters carry concealed. You are either in the woods or Mayberry. The spike in gun sales is more about "oh shit it could happen to me too" than it is about Obama signing laws.

A little reality check tells me that Open Carry would be far more likely to create a safer environment. Plus, it would be honest. Seriously, who's arguementgonna fuck with some guy sporting a sidearm? It's like a sign saying "IF I DON'T KNOW YOU, APPROACH AT YOUR OWN RISK!"

Funny thing about open carry. Even in places like Wyoming, people don't unless they are going to or from the woods. The only OC I saw in town was a guy riding a motorcycle to a range and he stopped to get gas. Under Wyoming law at that time, he could not legally put it in a saddle bag unless it was in a locked case. Couldn't be in glove box or under seat of car.

Imagine living in a society where the majority of individuals walked around with concealed sidearms. Is that what we really want? Is that what we consider progressive? My problem is not so much with the law or Constitution, but with the mentality and behavior of a huge chunk of the population that buys into this climate of fear and delusion. We should be way beyond that kind of social thought process.

I don't see it happening based on what argument I explained above, but I don't see it as issue either way. If there is no empirical evidence (like blood in the streets, duels, etc) then there is no social harm. Is it progressive? Doesn't matter. It is what it is. I stick to my previous rant on the difference between liberal and progressive. Climate of fear? Those opposed to liberal CCW policies are basing their opinions on fear. What delusion? How does one tell if the other guy is being delusional and not them? Much of what we think of as real is really an illusion. Most of what is objective reality, really isn't. Just ask the color blind guy why his socks don't match.
Ever hear of Briggs Myers? I have a hard time buying into value judgement arguments like "not a good social thought process" for a couple of reasons. One reason is that it doesn't sound that much different than anti marriage equality BS. Different words, but same basic argument. The other is, quite frankly, it doesn't mean anything to me.
http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP.html

[hack89]

99. Concealed carry has been around for ages - the consequences are known

you just ignore them because there is no blood in the streets like you keep saying will happen.

[Starboard Tack]

114. Wrong. Find a link where I mentioned blood in the streets.

CC means there are more guns in the streets. Not the kind of world most of us want to live in sorry. Especially when it is so easy to acquire a gun and a permit.
The problem is not guns, but easy access to guns, plus the depraved mentality that sees a gun as an acceptable tool for solving conflict in the public arena. We have less lethal options available for that.

The more who carry and buy handguns, the more there are in circulation. When the fad of carrying fades away, more of those guns will find their way into the hands of criminals and nutjobs.

[hack89]

116. So provide some hard facts

that demonstrate that as CCW increased gun violence also increased.

You have at least ten years of data to choose from.

[Starboard Tack]

118. Zimmerman et al!

[hack89]

119. I take that as you have nothing.

because otherwise you would bring out some hard numbers.

[Starboard Tack]

121. I'm too tired to dig up every case of an asshole with a permit.

Do your own research. Point is the more people carry, the more handguns circulate. Not my kind of solution. The point of diminishing returns is whatever you decide it is. For me it was a long time ago.

[hack89]

123. I am talking about government crime statistics

I know they are not popular with gun control advocates because they do not support your meme of more guns means more deaths but they are all we have.

It doesn't matter if more guns circulate if it does not produce more gun violence. And you know there is less gun violence.

[gejohnston]

120. still awaiting trial

had he used Google on how well pepper spray works dogs instead of listening to some animal control officer who told him "it won't phase pit bulls, buy a gun" he would be in the mess he is in. May have stayed in the car, or dead but not in the mess he is in now. Just saying

[YllwFvr]

124. you prefer oc to cc?

Ive done it but for some reason I cant figure it makes me uncomfortable.

[Starboard Tack]

128. I prefer neither, but if one feels the need, then OC is more honest.

You'd probably feel uncomfortable walking down the street naked too. I know I would.

[YllwFvr]

130. the more I think about it

The more I agree.
Both points actually but I meant your first one.

[spin]

81. First you used the word "ban" ...

Is my concealed weapons permit an item that I possess?

Does my state granted privilege to carry a concealed weapon allow me the ability to defend my myself using an effective tool for legitimate self defense when I find myself under attack from a individual who intends to inflict serious injury or to kill me and has the capacity to do so?

Do I as such a victim of an attack have the right to defend myself using lethal force when truly necessary?

Obviously although I have a concealed weapons permit I have no right to use my weapon unless I am a victim or are trying to defend another individual who is under such an attack. If I did so I would be the aggressor and if the law was written to allow me to carry a weapon and use it to attack another person without punishment, it would be both a victim rights law and a criminal rights law. The intention of the "shall issue" concealed carry law in my state is not to allow criminals to carry but to enable victims to effectively defend themselves. (Of course if the law is poorly written or if the legal system fails its responsibility an individual might not be a victim but the aggressor might escape punishment for his actions.)

Therefore a law that allows me to carry a concealed weapon with certain restrictions is indeed a victim rights law.

Your idea of banning all concealed carry would enable armed criminals to attack innocent victims without finding themselves facing equal or more lethal force. "Shall issue" concealed carry has swept across our nation and the violent crime rate has not increased. In fact it has returned to levels last seen in the late 60s.



I will state that I don't totally attribute this drop in the violent crime rate to concealed carry laws and other victim rights laws that have been implemented in the same time frame. There are far too many factors in the violent crime equation to prove such a conclusion. Still if victim rights law were as bad as many suggest we would see far more violent crime rather than a significant decrease.

[Starboard Tack]

86. You should be able to open carry. Talk to Tallahassee.

[gejohnston]

91. or get someone to challenge it based on

Watson v Stone and using the 14th Amendment to get it struck down. Heller was a 2d Amendment case. McDonald was a 14th Amendment case.
Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941) where an open carry conviction was overturned because:

"...the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the number of unlawful homicides...and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population...and there has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of the statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested."

It was passed in 1893 because African American migrant workers open carrying offended the sensibilities of some whites.

[Starboard Tack]

92. Well that was 1893. Time to move on.

[spin]

94. There are gun owners who are attempting to get open carry allowed in Florida ...

So far the movement has been largely unsuccessful. However as a result of their efforts I no longer have to be worried about being arrested if while walking across a parking lot on a breezy day the wind catches my jacket and a person nearby notices my holstered handgun.

[Llewlladdwr]

74. Open carry cool?

I could go for that.

[Starboard Tack]

75. Sure.

As long as it is legal and a "constitutional right" to carry, then there should be no restriction on OC. It is inherently more honest and gives those who do not like guns an opportunity to avoid them.
I find the explosion of CC to be a symptom of a truly sick society. It demonstrates a sense of fear, futility and hopelessness. Very sad.

[gejohnston]

77. explosion is not the word I would use

I think it demonstrates empowerment and the rights of the individual. Those are necessary in a liberal democracy.

[Starboard Tack]

85. Absolutely, as are our rights to comment on it.

[spin]

83. Of course I disgree ...

Concealed carry offers me the opportunity as an honest citizen who has met the requirements to carry a concealed weapon to walk in public and to interact with others without causing undue concern from those who irrationally fear firearms or those who legally carry them.

In some states open carry is common and accepted. In Florida firearms are common but open carry in public is unlawful. Florida is a tourist state and it attracts people from all over the nation and the world.

It would never be my intention to scare or intimidate others. I'm just some old rather overweight guy with a shaved head (as I hate paying full price for a haircut because I have so little hair on my head) who tries his best to be polite and congenial to everybody I encounter. I would hate to have some young child notice that I was carrying a firearm on my hip and run over to his mother and say, "Mommy that man has a gun!" Nor would I want to scare the crap out of some tourist from New York City or England who was visiting my state.

While I am not overly fond of tourists as they clog the roads and drive like fools, I do realize that they are extremely important to the economy of my state. Without tourists I would probably have to pay a state income tax. When many years ago I lived in Ohio I had to pay a state tax, a tax to the city I lived in and one to the city I worked in. The city I worked in didn't have enough money to properly plow snow off the streets quickly despite my yearly donation to its coffers.

[Starboard Tack]

95. Please explain what you mean by this

"without causing undue concern from those who irrationally fear firearms or those who legally carry them."

Are you suggesting that fear of firearms is irrational? If so, then most people are irrational. I think it would be irrational not to fear a loaded gun, or do you think only "tourists" are afraid.

Your rant about "tourists" and your distaste for paying taxes makes me seriously question both your politics and your integrity. You almost had me there.

[gejohnston]

96. the fear of any inanimate object

is irrational. There is a difference between fear and a healthy respect for not messing with don't know how to handle properly, especially a weapon.

Why pay an income tax when we can get the tourists pay taxes on their hotel stay? That's not right wing. Nor is It's not like the current regime in Tallahassee (or most of the former ones for that matter) will do anything responsible with it like education, health care, park system, etc. It will continue to be squandered on drug tests for people on welfare (lining Scott's pockets, he owns many of the labs), corporate welfare to developers, etc.

[AlexSatan]

101. Why?

Has there been a problem with CCP holders that I missed?

[Marinedem]

10. Keep things the same,

With one exception. Reopen the machine gun registry.

[petronius]

11. Reopen the NFA registry, and remove SBRs, SBSs, and silencers from the Act. No AWB.

IMO, 'reasonable' gun control is far more likely to exist when it addresses the who and the how rather than the what...

[alabama_for_obama]

44. What this person said.

Why does it matter whether a rifle has a 15.75" barrel or a 16" barrel? Other than someone waved a wand and decided that one should be illegal and the other not? Some of this stuff is absolutely ridiculous.

I wonder at times if we shouldn't just do away with the NFA entirely, along with all the rest of it. At this point free speech rights run rampant, such as the "right" of people on fox news to just make shit up, has caused more death and damage in this country than any particular class of weapons in the hands of the citizenry have.

[SoutherDem]

16. I don't know if I like any of those choices

I would say today laws plus, limits on the number of rounds which can be loaded at a time. But, more than that an honest dialog on the issue. As it is today while I feel most Americans support some gun control as the debate is framed it is always the two extremes.
I don't want to limit anyone's right to hunt or protect their families. I don't understand though why some of the guns which are now legally available fits those needs. Likewise, no matter what the founding fathers wanted, we are not in the circumstances today as they were. I won't challenge they intended for the citizens to be able to defend the country while an army is being formed. As I understand history they never intended the army we now have, if a permeant army at all. But, we do have a full time military, we also have a the national guards which effectively fits the needs of the citizen militia. But, the end results are if we were invaded by another country or ever felt the need to fight our own government we would fail. Remember Waco? So, even if it was the intent of the founding fathers, and I think it was, those days are gone.
If we could have a real open minded debate without a bunch of people running around decrying any guns or chants of "there coming to get our guns" we may find a reasonable set of laws which both protect the rights of people to own guns without outfitting someone to carry out a massacre.

[Trunk Monkey]

25. Would it surprise you to know that the militia HAS been called out as late as 1942?

or to know that several states have state militias that have nothing to do with the federal military?

[SoutherDem]

35. First, no.

Second, I do support the right to keep and bear arms.

But, I don't see why calling out a militia 70 years ago disproves my point, nor the fact that some states do have well regulated militias. I can't imagine citizens or even a state militia being much of a challenge for the organized armed forces of today, even if we allowed full-automatic weapons to be in the hands of the average citizen no matter what size magazine used nor the amount of rounds they have stored. Once again I point out Waco. Perhaps I am missing a piece of the puzzle.

I called for open minded debate and thought your question was phrased as someone who felt they were the cat that just swallowed the canary, I will take it as at least open debate. If you would cough up the canary, I would welcome to continue this discussion if you wish. Other wise I suggest we agree to disagree.

[Trunk Monkey]

48. Continuing the discussion

I actually only put that out for informative purposes only, I thought it was interesting.

Could a citizen militia defeat a professional army? I think it depends on the army. Could a citizen militia effectively augment a standing army in time of grave national crisis such as a real invasion? Absolutely.
Another benefit to a well armed and well trained populace is that if called to active duty to defend the nation little time need be spent teaching them how to shoot.

I’m not sure how Waco has any bearing on this. The Branch Davidians were vastly outnumbered and had women and children in the compound with them all the reports I’ve read said that most of them didn’t even fight back

[SoutherDem]

50. You make some good points, maybe we are not comparing apples to apples.

Let me start by saying if I misunderstood the tone of you reply, I apologize. It brought to mind many exchanges with a friend of mine during the first two years of the Obama Administration, before the obstructionist Republican House was elected. He would almost daily call me to tell me the latest FOX talking point, not that you are doing that, but he would often start the way you did. "Would it surprise you that ____________ (insert latest talking point). I thought that was the attitude you were taking. I should not have jumped to conclusions.

Now for the two point you made.

I guess it would depend on the army. Perhaps I am giving too much credit to our Armed Forces and National Guards, or maybe I am not giving enough credit to other nations Armed Forces. My thought is an armed force which would attack the US is either stupid, too small/weak to not be ran over rather effortlessly by our military, not to mention having the ability go get here in any significant force, or, so large/strong for armed citizens to make a difference. I know examples of Vietnam or Afghanistan are at times uses to state how our Armed Forces have been defeated or at least challenged, but I feel the rules of engagement would be vastly different. Thinking of those examples, you have two people speaking the same language, dressed the same way, but one is friend and the other is the enemy, to prevent killing your friend you had very restrictive rules of engagement. I don't see those restrictive rules being used if we had enemy forces coming ashore or parachuting down. Perhaps there is a scenario which I am not taking into consideration. More on this thought later.

As to Waco, maybe I am underestimating the strength of the civilian militia. But, I use Waco as an example because you had citizens well armed being overwhelmed by the professional military. Going back to my examples from above, a strong armed force would, IMO overwhelm the militias, and a weak armed force would be stopped by our armed forces extremely quickly.
That said I very well may be underestimating the citizen militias. Perhaps they are much stronger than I assume they are. This may be my not being educated of the current militias, but the limited knowledge I have of any local militias seem to be, no offense intended, people preparing to step in and over turn our government if it is ever needed, and more or less take the position of the tea party stoping just short of saying President Obama has all but created such a situation where this would be needed.
I hope there is another militia which I am unaware, keep in mind I don't personally circulate with these people and am going by just a few local news reports. Also, if the citizens militia were not so secretive. The news reports I referred to were conducted under the following circumstances, the reporter had to go to a point rather deep in the woods, where a group of men (all white) in camouflage wearing bandana to hid there appearance caring weapons which may or may not have been fully-automatic but were military looking weapons. At no point did they discuss protecting the US from an attack from another country but defend the Constitution which was being destroyed, by our elected officials. A well regulated militia does not frighten me in the least and I support those completely, but if the militia is so afraid of being identified they have to meet in secrete and incognito, I am not sure if they are well regulated, nor anything like the militias which helped win our independence from Great Britain.

Back to my first point. You said bring back the NFA Registry. I think that is allowing all class 2 weapons but requiring them to be registered after only extensive background checks. (Please correct me if I am wrong). If this would require annual renewals and extensive training I can't say I would have a problem with this. I am less concerned with a well trained, registered, mentally stable private citizen having a fully-automatic weapon than I am a untrained, unregistered/once registered, mental condition unknown, private citizen having a single round bolt action weapon.
As it is often said "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." While, I don't find the logic in that statement that some do, it does have a point. I am concerned with the people less than the gun. I know a lot of people who I would trust with a fully-automatic weapon without question and a few who I don't trust with a pellet gun. But, a militia which were formed to assist, or be the first lie of defense to an invasion by another nations give me no concern, and may actually give me comfort, if it were "well regulated" even if they are armed with fully-automatic weapons.

The problem is the way the argument is framed. Between the all or nothing groups, the NRA publicly stating that President Obama is going to take away ALL guns, those who don't understand the difference between fully-automatic weapons and a semi-automatic weapons, those who feel if a gun looks like a military weapon is more dangerous than a weapon which looks like a hunting weapon, and people simply not understanding what the 2nd Amendment says or means (which I have come to the conclusion is everyone, with everyone feeling they do understanding it, so everyone else is wrong), I am not sure if we will ever get anywhere. This is why I call for open-minded discussion. I see that being the only hope left.

[Trunk Monkey]

56. I am talking about actual state sponsored militias such as the Texas State Guard

http://www.txsg.state.tx.us/

Or the Alaska territorial guard which actually saw combat in WWII
http://atg.alaska.gov/

And is now known as the Alaska State Defense force

http://dmva.alaska.gov/asdf/

Not the Montana Freemen or the Michigan Militia

Back to my first point. You said bring back the NFA Registry. I think that is allowing all class 2 weapons but requiring them to be registered after only extensive background checks.

Yes, but I would drop the 200 dollar tax and make the applicant pay for the background check.

If this would require annual renewals and extensive training I can't say I would have a problem with this.

I believe this would place an undue burden on the applicant.

[SoutherDem]

60. We are in agreement on the types of militia

I agree with dropping the $200 tax. The reason I say annual renewals is so catch something after the initial issuance but 4 years like your DL would do, I am not wanting to add undue burden but something to insure safety. As to the extensive training, this would be similar to drivers ed, but a simple proficiency test would work. I simply would like to guarantee the person knows how to safely use the weapon, by the way membership in a state sponsored militia would adequate training and should also be able to handle the registration, possibly. The reason I stress training is although it isn't often, from time to time we hear how someone legally owning and carrying a weapon does something stupid which injures or kills someone, a little training (and respect for the weapon) may prevent this.

All of this aside, we are in near agreement. By simple open discussion and a little clarification.

[Trunk Monkey]

63. The only thing we don't agree on is the training requirement

I think the training requirement is a waste of time because after several years as an NCO training people how to safely use automatic weapons it's been my experience that you either get the basic safety rules in five minutes or you never will.

I don't know your level of firearms proficiency or experience so I am posting the four basic safety rules here.

1. Treat all firearms as loaded at all times.

2. Always keep your firearm holstered or pointed in a safe direction.

3. Know (identify) your target and what's beyond it.

4. keep your finger of the trigger until your sights are on the target

[oneshooter]

129. +1000 on the training

Four years as an Instructor NCO at Parris Island taught me the same thing.

[Kaleva]

18. Other

This is what i had posted in Meta:

Large capacity detachable magazines ought to be banned. For handguns, the magazine cannot extend past the bottom of the grip. For long guns, the maximum capacity of a detachable magazine for rifles and shotguns would be five rounds. There would be no exceptions for civilians. Those that currently have such mags would have to turn them in ( and be compensated for fair market value) or destroy them. The penalty for having one would be the same as for having an unregistered class III weapon. You'll note that I'm just talking about detachable magazines. I have no problem with guns that have an internal magazine such as the M-1 Garand which has a maximum internal magazine capacity of 8 rounds. The reason I don't have a problem with guns that have an internal magazine is that one cannot reload them as fast as a gun with a detachable magazine.

However, as the shooting at VT has shown, a person with semi-automatic handguns and alot of magazines can still kill quite a few people so I'd further propose that the manufacture in this country or importation of semi-automatic handguns for civilian use be banned. Semi-automatic handguns manufactured or imported into this country prior to the ban going into effect would remain legal to purchase, sell or own. I would also ban the manufacture in this country or importation of rimless and semi-rimmed handgun ammo for civilian use. Those who own a semi-automatic handgun, semi-rimmed or rimless ammo can turn in their weapon(s) and/or ammo and be compensated fair market value. There would be no such restrictions on revolvers, single shot (open break) handguns or rimmed handgun cartridges.

As for being able to purchase a gun or even ammo, one would have go thru the same procedures one currently does in order to get a concealed weapons permit. They would have to attend and successfully complete a certified training program applicable to the type of gun they wish to buy (handgun, rifle, shotgun) and go thru a background check and submit fingerprints. Those on active military duty or those veterans who did not receive a dishonorable discharge can submit a copy of their military I.D. or DD-214 to satisfy the training requirement. Upon completion of the course and background check, the person would be issued a permit that has a passport grade photo and info on which type of gun and ammo of any kind the person may buy or have in their possession. This permit would be valid for 5 years upon which it would have to be renewed. The permit can be revoked upon conviction of certain crimes or by court order. While the individuals states, US territories, and the District of Columbia would issues such permits to their residents, it would be valid in all 50 states, all US territories and the District of Columbia. All those with a permit will be entered into a national data base. As for sales, the seller, be it a licensed gun dealer or private person, would be required by law to verify that the buyer has a permit.

The aforementioned in regards to permits would be the federal minimum standard. Individual states and local jurisdictions may impose greater standards (such as prohibiting the possession of any handgun or semi-automatic long gun with a detachable magazine) but all must meet the federal minimum standard.

I'm not under any illusion that any of what I've mentioned has any chance of being enacted but they are my views on what would be effective gun control measures. Anything less then what I've suggested would be, IMHO, utterly useless in significantly reducing gun deaths.

[Oneka]

19. Voted "other" explaination:

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

This amendment to the constitution means exactly what it says. It means that "government" on the Federal, State, or Local level may not infringe on my right to keep/own,and bear/carry, arms.

Personally i feel that unless someone of adult age, is currently incarcerated, or under the care of a custodian, due to mental health issues, the government has no business whatsoever controlling what arms that person owns or carries.
When i say arms, what is meant by me is: any weapon of military utility, not designed for use in an indiscriminate fashion,
up to ,but not including, crew served weapons.


A non exhaustive list would include.

knives
blunt weapons
swords
bows w/arrows
spears
slings
atlatl w/ spears
blowguns w/darts
airguns
crossbows
handguns
shotguns
semi automatic rifles
fully automatic light machine guns
fully automatic carbines
sub machine guns

[SoutherDem]

21. Just wondering

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

It means that "government" on the Federal, State, or Local level may not infringe on my right to keep/own,and bear/carry, arms.

From your interpretation it seem you feel it has nothing to do with the militia. Is this correct?
Wouldn't the amendment mean the same thing without it?
Why include anything about the militia?

Shouldn't the amendment simply read The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Oneka]

22. Its an individual right

It doesn't say , the right of the "militia" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The reasons for the prefatory clause in this amendment is debatable, it is settled law however , that the right applies to individuals.

[SoutherDem]

24. I would agree it is settled law.

However changing settled law is much different than changing an amendment. Settled law seems to take just one case worded in a certain way for the SCOTUS to take an 180 degree turn.

That said, I do agree we have the right to keep and bear arms. I doubt that will ever change. Nor go as far as you wish.

I do worry about discarding the first part of the amendment. It seems to have been important enough to put in, so I can't believe it has no meaning. I also, wonder why the founding fathers chose to say that first. If you read the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights they don't seem to mince words and got to the point up front.

You are correct it is the right of the people, not of the militia. But, the question many have is does the militia create the need for the right and without the need is the right needed.

I actually do agree with your interpretation, I am simply stating multiple sides, something not done very often in this argument. That said, I do not agree with your list of what the amendment grants us the right to keep and bear and if it is, if it should still not be restricted. We do accept restrictions to rights. We have free speech but we are not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. We accept reasonable restrictions. In replying to the OP of this thread I called for open dialog. As long as we are at the status quo we will never find a resolution and we will all continue to pontificate on this subject.

I realize you disagree with me and you of course are welcome to challenge my opinions.

[Oneka]

30. I'm about to chalenge one right now

I do not agree with your list of what the amendment grants us the right to keep and bear

My list did not include what i want the right to grant me, my list is what i want government to have no control over whatsoever. You see, rights are not "granted" by the constitution, or the bill of rights. Rights exist and pre existed the constitution,
what the bill of rights attempted to do was codify that sentiment, and make it clear, that government had no control of the items therein. Statements like " shall make no law", "shall not be infringed" " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" , these statements and others like them in the bill of rights, make it clear that they are limiting government power, not granting me anything. Sadly government has shown that when it "really really wants to" it can act outside of the constraints of the limitations placed on it by our bill of rights. It has happened far too often in our history.

I do agree that we wont find a resolution in our lifetime, far too many divergent opinions.

[SoutherDem]

36. Yes far to many divergent opinions.

That I do agree. As to rights. We really are talking semantics. No matter if your use the term exist, pre existed, granted or given by a spirit in the sky. I am willing and feel we should give up some of those rights. Just as in my example of free speech.
We disagree with this. There is nothing I can say to change your mind, nor will there be anything which you can say which will change my mind. We must agree to disagree. Thank you for the civil exchange.

[PavePusher]

54. No, it's not mere semantics.

It's about fundamentally differing concepts on the powers and limits of government.

Government, in the U.S., does NOT "grant" Rights. We have inherent Rights that the Government may not touch, except as agreed upon by the people.

[TPaine7]

32. "...discarding the first part of the amendment..."

It is not discarding the first part of the Second Amendment to interpret it the way the Supreme Court and the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did.

In fact, people in the Founder's time would have found the way many honest people interpret it today strange indeed. Preambles and purpose clauses do not limit the scope of a law unless the operative portion is unclear. Since "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is clear, the purpose clause does not limit its meaning.

The way laws, consitutions and even contracts are interpreted hasn't changed since the Constitution was writen, it's just that writing in that way is much less common today. However, consider a simple analogy.

A father's last will and testament is read. One of the paragraphs reads as follows:

Since competence in accounting is necessary to the management of an accounting firm and Susan is the only one of my children who is a certified public accountant, I leave my company to her provided that she must take a salary of no more than $150,000 per annum adjusted for inflation and share the profits equally with her siblings.

The purpose clause—"Since competence in accounting is necessary to the management of an accounting firm and Susan is the only one of my children who is a certified public accountant—contains not a shred of direction.

A court would interpret this exactly as if it read: "I leave my company to {Susan} provided that she must take a salary of no more than $150,000 per annum adjusted for inflation and share the profits equally with her siblings." The court would not be ignoring the first part, it would be reading it exactly as it was written. It would be enforcing every instruction that the first clause contained; it is not the court's problem that the first clause contained no instruction whatsoever. If the clause contains no instruction, one cannot be created by the court and injected to avoid "ignoring" the clause.

Now let's say that Susan's brother Jim went to school and got his CPA. Let's say he went to a better school than the one Susan attended and got better grades. Let's say he then wanted to take over the company, or at least to share control with her.

He could argue that the first part of the sentence—the purpose clause—is no longer true. He would be right. He could also argue that since the first part is no longer right—Susan is no longer the only one of his father's children who is a CPA—the operative clause is no longer binding. But that logic would not work in court.

The purpose clause cannot overule or change the scope of a clear directive.

[SoutherDem]

37. So why include the stuff about the militia?

I get your example, but still don't understand why include it.

Why not simply say. The Peoples rights to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed? Wouldn't that have made things much easier? Why was it needed?

You seem to have a good grasp of the law, much better than mine. Just wondering. Since the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, or at least that is what I have always been told. And, since it is often stated it is settled law by the SCOTUS that the 2nd Amendment could be read without the first part. Could a future SCOTUS for whatever reason unsettle the law? Could a future SCOTUS state the purpose clause is needed for the right to exist?

I will say this, since we, with DU3, get to see how people voted. We are very close on how we feel about his issue, I could have voted that way with one small exception, I have even considered changing my vote. So I don't want you to feel I am being argumentative. I am seeking clarification. For me the sad part of this argument is people too often will be on the same side of the fight, but argue on a minor detail. I don't mean to be doing this. I really want to try and understand.

[TPaine7]

38. It was quite common at the time to have purpose clauses or preambles.

In the case of the Second Amendment and many other laws of the time, the purpose clause was given to communicate the purpose of the enactment. That is the same reason for the first clause in the paragraph in the will. It is also the reason for the Preamble to the Constituition.

However, it would be illegitimate for the president to claim that the Preamble's "provide for the common defense" snippet overrode the clear directive that he can serve no more than two terms, and that in order for the nation to have clear and consistent leadership through these trying times, he must continue as Commander in Chief—for the common defense. That would (hopefully) get laughed out of court—the preamble cannot override a clear directive in the body.

The purpose clause of the Second Amendment sounds strange to us today, but we still have something similiar (and I would argue much more superfluous). Here's a made up example of how some laws still read:

Wheareas the great state of Nevada has always been at the forefront of championing human rights, and Whereas the people of Nevada have seen fit to entrust this body with the sacred duty of protecting the bond between mother and child, and whereas it has been shown that breastfeeding is beneficial to children's mental, emotional and social development, be it hereby enacted that

1) All restaraunts in the state of Nevada having greater than 2,500 sf of dining area shall provide no fewer than three (3) private booths suitable for mothers to breasfeed their children...

Why would the legislature take the time to inform us that the state of Nevada is great? I guess because it sounds good. But it is not enforceable in court. It is very clear where the enforceable part begins.

The bottom line: the signers wanted to tell us why they were enacting the Second Amendment, it was customary in those days, and we have analogous clauses even today, though we word them differently.

Edited to add:

As to what the Supreme Court could do, the Court is reluctant to reverse itself, perversely so IMO. For example, the Court in MacDonald did not reverse the lower court on the right grounds—the priviledges or immunities clause. Scalia addmitted that they were wrong as a matter of history and logic, but that they would do the right thing with the wrong rationale rather than revisit settled law and upset the legal apple cart.

However, the sooner the opportunity arises to overturn Heller and MacDonald, the more likely it is that it will not be regarded as "settled law", no matter what platitudes the Justices spout in order to get through confirmation. The bottom line is, the Court can do anything they think they can get away with, including transparent lying and making up their own facts so as to support an abomination.

That's what Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Roger Taney did (with the backing of a 7-2 majority) to support slavery, as I write about here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x176226#176809 . That started the Civil War, after which the Fourteenth Amendment was written, in part to allow individual citizens, including blacks, to carry guns. The language that did it, the "priviledges and imunities" clause, was purposefully nulified by the Court, and the Court still, while overturning the wrong, insists on maintaining its pretend infallibility by not restoring the proper interpretation of the original language with its original intent.

Clear as mud?

I don't mind answering these questions, and I don't think you're being argumentative in the least.

[SoutherDem]

52. Not mud but at least dirty water.

Seriously, I get what you are saying, and it does make sense, actually maybe the best articulated argument I have yet to hear.

With any discussion on the 2nd Amendment it will get heated, even on a progressive website. I can just imagine what is happening on other websites. Never the less, I do find a couple things somewhat odd as to people and the 2nd Amendment. Everyone knows what it says, so everybody else is wrong, but there are numerous interpretations of the Amendment, not just two, one pro and one anti.
About 4 months ago I got in a heated discussion with someone who knew what the 2nd Amendment says, he basically reached the same end conclusion you do as in it is settled law, but he based his entire argument on the purpose clause, in fact his full argument would fall apart without it and made some very good arguments which could be used to basically make the 2nd Amendment null and void, if he were correct. That was not the only time I have seen people defend there opinion of the 2nd Amendment with somewhat failed logic, some to the point they made a better argument for the other side.
You have however explained your interpretation in a rational fashion, and gave real examples. Thank you.

For what it is worth, I feel you are correct, and wish other would read your explanation, actually I wish you would one day find the time to make an OP in which you explain the entire amendment. Great job.

As I think you can tell, I was seeking answers, not arguments but too often people like to attack if you don't agree with them 100% or are just asking for clarification.

As to changing settled law. I agree it happens seldom. I guess what I am trying to ask, but actually am afraid to ask with an example, is since it can happen, and does so without any change in the wording of the constitution, is it safe to place all your faith in it being established law?

Without giving specific examples, I can think of at least two examples so horrendous it could change the national opinion or at least that of the law makers and the courts.

If I were asked before 9/11 if there could ever be an event in the US which would bring us the Patriot Act I would have laughed, but it happened.

I am not being as articulate as I would like, and even at times seem to be arguing the other side, but I am not as comfortable in relying on established law as some.

[Oneka]

65. I had mentioned

in an earlier post that the purpose of the prefatory clause was debatable. I think Tpaine has just won that debate, or at least made one hell of an argument for his interpretation.

[alabama_for_obama]

46. It has always been my understanding

That the statement of purpose, I.e. the well regulated militia bit was there to explain part of why the government should not be permitted to infringe on the right of the people to bear arms.

In most of the world the notion that there would be no king's army lording over and harassing the common people, that the security of the state would be entrusted to the people, was a pretty radical notion and still remains so to this day.

As to anyone who thinks that small arms are useless against a modern army, ask the Vietnamese and the Afghanis how they feel about that. No match in the short term perhaps, but over the long term, in the hands of people determined to keep control over their own lands and destiny they have proven very effective. The number of common people in this country who own guns and are proficient in their use may not be the only thing that keeps away foreign invaders here, but it is surely a factor.

[SoutherDem]

53. You make some good points

From what I can tell (from other posts) you would favor removing class 2 restrictions. Is that a fair assessment? Just wondering?

There are a set of circumstances in which I agree.

I made a detailed reply to Truck Monkey on this thread, it is #50. Rather than trying to repeat it you can see my answer there. I would be glad to clarify any questions you have about that post, or if you feel I have missed something.

[alabama_for_obama]

57. Yes.

For the most part the class 2 rules seem arbitrary and unnecessary, and in some instances run contrary to doing good. I am against all arbitrary laws, they dilute people's respect for the rule of law in gneral.

SBR/SBS who makes these arbitrary rules that 16 is ok, but 15.75" is somehow too short? Cant have a pistol with a shoulder stock, but there are some antique mausers (that still shoot and are deadly) that are somehow exempt?
And Suppressors. Why should I have to suffer hearing damage? Why should neighbors to a firing range have to listen to gunfire all day? The arguments for suppressors are specious at best. Law breakers are going to have them and use them regardless. They aren't very hard to make with simple hand tools and readily available materials, from everything I have seen and read (though I would recommend against doing so without proper paperwork) It's already a felony to poach game, who cares if you have a second felony on top of it for having a suppressor while doing it? Either way, get caught and go to jail for a long time.

I'm on the fence about full-auto, but lean towards liberalizing those rules. Most people just couldn't afford to feed something like that, and determined individuals will have then regardless of the legality. At the same time it's hard to argue that they have legitimate use in everyday life, but then the 2A is not necessarily about everyday life.

I think the founders would be shocked that we even contemplate restricting firearms ownership, and that they didn't put in a clause about self defense and hunting because those should be self evident to any rational person. The right of the people to rise up against tyrants, however was and remains a radical notion, especially to have this embedded in the founding documents of a country as happened here.

[SoutherDem]

61. I may need to clarify and seek info.

I may have used the wrong tern as to class 2 rules. I was actually referring to fully automatic guns.
I agree with the list of items you stated. When I first read what makes an assault weapon I almost laughed, I didn't see the logic behind them. Okay, I actually do but I just don't agree. Basically, it seems they don't want citizens to have a gun which looks military, maybe for quick identification, some psychological factor or for the "fear factor", but if that were the case why not simply say what they mean, instead of some list of restrictions which don't make the weapon any more dangerous.

Going back to the argument of being a part of defending the country in the 21st century I see fully-auto weapons the only way that could be possible, and I still have doubts that would have much affect. Nevertheless, for those who belong to a state sponsored militia or have had full background checks, training and registration I could accept those in society. By the way, if the purpose of those guns are the defense of our nation, why shouldn't the state sponsored militia supply the ammo to feed those guns and for that matter supply the gun to be surrounded upon leaving the militia?

As to the founding fathers opinions of our current debate. I am hesitate to guess what they would think of our current debate. They may even worded the 2nd Amendment differently so to prevent these discussions. Things are so different today, I am not sure they could have had even a guess as to where weaponry would evolve to, just as if we decided to rewrite the 2nd Amendment to fit today specifically, how would it work in 250 years? Beyond thought experiments, that discussion would be academic at best.

If you get a chance could you help with with a couple of terms. I am guessing class 2 are the "assault weapon" which as we have established has the 16" barrel, stock with pistol grip, suppressor and collapsing stock. What weapon type/class is a fully automatic?

[alabama_for_obama]

69. Class 2

I Meant most everything covered in the NFA, though as I said, I am on the fence with full auto machine guns, sub machine guns (real assault rifles with select fire or only full auto) and machine pistols.

The rest of the stuff covered under the NFA, especially SBR's and SBS's seems pretty arbitrary and unnecessary. Likewise the arguments for making suppressors hard to get is pretty weak when compared to tue benefits that they offer.

As to what currently gets labeled as an "assault weapon" that whole law was pretty laughable, the moment you familiarize yourself with firearms technology, even on a casual basis. I'm still not sure what they were trying to do exactly, except that in an incrementalist world view, any restriction on gunownership is a good one. The only thing that is of any possible merit from the assault weapons ban is the magazine capacity limits, and even then, the arguments against are weak at best. Personally if I were to get an ar-15, it would have wooden furniture instead of the ubiquitous plastic available today.

We would be better off understanding what makes people feel act out in violent ways and address that than if we were to push any stricter gun restrictions.

[pop topcan]

106. You make an interesting point about the implementation of the 2nd, I think it would be very odd

if they did not know about the Girendoni (sp?) repeating rifle which was in military use 10 years before the Bill of Rights was adopted. Surely that, and the rapid advancement of printing technology over the century or so before that time would have been strong indicators of the likelihood of incipient modernization of all sorts of devices. I personally believe they did anticipate the advances and thus didn't get too specific on the amendments in order to not limit them.

[NewMoonTherian]

71. Applying modern grammar, it could also read:

"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If that's not accurate for any reason, I hope someone will correct me.

The unorganized militia consists of all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 years old, and former armed forces servicemen up to 65 years old. That definition is outdated and needs to be updated to include women, and the general upper age should also be increased. The people are the militia, so the militia clause has plenty of meaning.

[gregoire]

26. This site is completely infiltrated!

Only 12% voted for reasonable restrictions which include only allowing the police and army to have those things.

[Reasonable_Argument]

29. Is it really that hard to believe

That many of us liberals are quite adamant in our support of the 2nd amendment?

[tortoise1956]

40. That isn't reasonable at all

It would effectively nullify one of the most important sections of the bill of rights. Consider this - almost every state constitution has language mirroring the intent of the 2nd amendment, in many cases using almost the exact phrasing. I don't think any other section of the constitution, or the bill of rights, is restated in so many states.

In he end, I have to agree with Robert Heinlein: "An armed society is a polite society."

[spin]

42. I wouldn't call limiting ownership of semi-auto assault style rifles to the police and the military

a reasonable restriction at all.

The military and many police agencies use true assault rifles which allow the selection of semi-auto, burst and sometimes full automatic.

Your "reasonable" is draconian to me and to many other members of DU who may support the 2nd Amendment but are very liberal and progressive on many other issues.

[alabama_for_obama]

45. Gun control as called for by the Brady bunch and VPC

Is the exact opposite of what a liberal position on these issues would be. Gun control and gun banning as desired by Brady bunch and VPC are conservative positions held by otherwise liberal and progressive people. Please stop confusing these things.

[PavePusher]

55. Ooooooo, a purity test!

Let us know how that works out for you, eh?

[NewMoonTherian]

59. Infiltrated with what, exactly? n/t

[rrneck]

82. You better go get some help.

[Glassunion]

28. Where do I vote

for photon torpedoes and corn-bread?

[TPaine7]

34. Down the hall, third door on the left... %!@#ing Corn-bread Trekkies! n/t

[Jessy169]

33. Ban semi-automatic military-style assualt rifles

Ban large capacity clips. The only thing those are good for is killing people. Pistols, hunting or hobby rifles, shotguns -- no problem. We'll still have plenty of gun related deaths, but that would cut down on the number of mass killings -- just my guess.

[spin]

41. Why? Becaue they look evil? ...

The are functionally the same as semi-automatic hunting rifles and in fact are used for hunting and becoming quite popular with hunters. (No you don't use a 20,30 or 100 round magazine to hunt. Most states limit magazine size to five rounds while hunting.)

Watch this video to see the difference between a hunting rifle and an assault style semi-auto rifle. It features a police officer who works for the San Jose Police Department and has 25 years experience on the force. If you have any interest in understanding this subject this is a very valuable video to watch. I feel that it is fair to both sides of the issue.

[Trunk Monkey]

49. Your guess is wrong.

Twice as many people are beaten to death every year as are killed w/ rifles of any type

[xxenderwigginxx]

90. see reply 89

[ileus]

47. all class III approval needs to be sped up.

[Hoyt]

51. Almost impossible to carry in public. Severe restrictions on guns manufactured as "assault/tactical"

weapons for home defense. Yea, I know that has to be better defined. Probably need to consider some restrictions on the number of guns someone can own. Maybe exclude some gun manufactured prior to say 1900.


Time to start now, so we don't have several more million guns in the hands of people like this over next few years:

[TheKentuckian]

62. Return to intent, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I also think that people should re-commit to the militia (though participation is not required to keep and bear) by neighborhood, then, community, and then a national organization. Knowing your neighbors and having common cause would potentially bring people together and foster more integration and less characterizing each other while building organization in case of "unimaginable" events and natural disaster.

I'm betting that a Katrina situation (on the ground) would be a lot less likely to happen in such circumstances. People leave strangers behind not members of their unit.

Liberals need to internalize that our job isn't to reduce the rights of the people and even in such an necessity, never to transfer that power to the few but rather to in great and pressing need remove it entirely.
I don't favor civilians with nuclear arms but then I'm against the military having them either and the prospect of individuals with such stuff would straighten out some thinking and keep people from hiding behind authority to justify backing insanity.

If the people cannot be trusted with power then no one can. The people are the source of all power in a democracy (whatever brand it is be it direct or representative). Any power and authority the government has is held in stewardship on behalf of the people. The notion that the government grants our rights is anti-liberal, deeply right wing, and wrongheaded and sure as hell isn't in the neighborhood of liberal.
Of course the modern "progressive" movement has authoritarian elements. In fact just as authoritarian as many in the far right but with a predilection to use the power of government to compel their agenda rather than going at it from the perspective of the anti-government agenda though the two can team up to degrade our civil liberties for "safety" or to foment the drug war or to censor/monitor communication by tapping our phones and having internet kill switches.

The authoritarian "left" is an anchor around the wider movement and in fact controls the agenda. We'll make little real progress and probably go backward on the net as long as we allow this folks to be a driving force.

[NewMoonTherian]

70. Repeal the Hughes amendment and allow new manufacture...

fully automatic weapons for the civilian market. Reduce the heavy tax and paperwork burdens on Title II weapons.

[aikoaiko]

72. I won't stand for banning guns.

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2012, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)

I think that most of them that are banned should be unbanned.

[cherokeeprogressive]

73. In the back.

[Speck Tater]

76. Other. But frankly I don't know what other.

I just know that what we have doesn't work, and yet I sympathize with hunters, target shooters, and collectors. I don't like guns, yet gunsmithing is a fascinating technology to me. I used to enjoy target shooting when I was in the Air Force, but now, 40 years later, I don't get any kick out of it. (No pun intended)

Obviously I'm very conflicted on the subject.

[jody]

78. Federal government has no constitutional authority to ban arms. SCOTUS said "the Second Amendment,

like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. . . . ‘{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence’”.

Before the Constitution and as sovereign states, PA (1776) and VT (1777) said "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable/unalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." and "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Government does not have the authority to ban arms although gun-grabbers would like to do that.

[Thinkingabout]

79. As speed is controlled so should certain weapons

We love our vehicles but must operate them with safety, do no harm. Large amounts of ammo and automatic weapons does not need to be in the hands of civilians. We would still be able to have firearms but with reasonability.

[gejohnston]

80. Automatic weapons AKA machine guns

are strictly regulated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act


and what are "large amounts" of ammo? A competitive shooter easily goes through a thousand rounds a week.

[xxenderwigginxx]

89. You can always tell the people who

do not actually own guns. In all the hubbub about the killers "assault rifle", any shooter (especially current or former military) can tell you that the most lethal weapon in that crowded compact theater was the shotgun, not the AR-15. According to reports, he emptied the shotgun and switched to the AR which jammed. I guarantee, the high injury rate was due to the fact that the shotgun in a small cramped space can hit 3+ people every time you pull the trigger. An AR-15 can be made to hold 100 rounds, but you would have to pull the trigger 100 times (with no jams) and hit your target accurately 100 times. Also, no current legal firearm is full-auto, I dont care how scary it looks.

[alabama_for_obama]

93. shhhh! you'll have the gun grabbers wanting to ban shotguns now too!

[NYC_SKP]

97. Bookmarking.

I wonder if the results would be significantly different if posted in GD.

hmmmmm

[RoccoR5955]

98. The second amendment supports our right to bear arms

aren't nuclear weapons arms?

I want my shoulder mounted, laser guided, nuclear missile. Just for target practice. L-O-N-G range target practice. I don't wanna kill anyone!

[pop topcan]

107. If you can find and afford one, I fully support your right to own it.

Seriously.

[actslikeacarrot]

100. Any option...

...by itself sucks. I dont think ALL guns should be banned, but I think magazine capacity should have a limit and I think there should be a way to weed out those that wish to do harm. What that way is I'm not sure, but there are a hell of a lot smarter people than me that could find a way that wouldn't make it impossible to purchase a firearm. And as for guns being stolen, how about we offer tax breaks or other incentives for gun owners to buy gun safe's or trigger locks?

I own ONE firearm. It is a .22 single shot target pistol. There are no magazines or clips or "magazineclips" (whatever those are) for it. I have to manually insert one round, fire, open the breech and insert another round. I inherited it from my father, as he was big into target shooting in his college days. I keep it in a locked safe that only my wife and I know the combination AND have a key for. (it takes both to open). My pistol is not in any danger of being used in a mass casualty incident.

[riqster]

103. Give Law Enforcement the tools it needs for background checks

Doing it on the cheap and on a state-by-state basis ain't working.

Oh, and fuck those 30-round magazines.

[gejohnston]

105. the FBI does it

the locals use the same databases.

[riqster]

110. With significant differences in local

Technology and connectivity. State/local budgets have a huge impact on the process, as do state/local laws.

There's more to it than a slightly kludgey Federal database.

[gejohnston]

112. perhaps money should go to IT upgrades

and get everyone on the same sheet of music.

[riqster]

125. Tes-tify! (Nt)

[doc03]

104. At the very minimum I would put all semi-auto pistols, shotguns, rifles and

ammo capacity over six rounds under the 1934 weapons law. I would rather have all those weapons eliminated, but that's probably too much to ask.

[pop topcan]

108. One quick question, do you consider double action revolvers to be semi-automatic?

...

[doc03]

111. No I wouldn't, I'll let you have those. n/t

[spin]

109. The capacity of a semi-auto is dependent on the size of the magazine in the weapon. ...

Most semi-auto pistols have detachable magazines that hold more than 6 rounds. The tiny Ruger LCP comes with a six round magazine but 10 round mags are available.

Your idea would effectively place all semi-auto pistols on the 1934 weapons law. The chances of such a law passing at this time are probably less than the world ending on Dec. 21.

[doc03]

113. That's what I said in a perfect world I would eliminate all semi-autos. But

I would settle for just putting them under the 1934 restrictions if that's all we could get. I know it's not possible now it may take a few more elementary school massacres for Americans to come to their senses.

[spin]

115. So then the shooter will just use a pump shotgun and revolvers. ...

and you will wish to ban them.

That is far from an unusual opinion and one thing you have going for you is media support. The media will push hard for draconian gun control and who knows, you might succeed.

[doc03]

117. The usual stupid argument from the gun lobby, somebody could use a pump shotgun or a

revolver. It would be much more difficult to murder 20 six year olds with a shotgun or a revolver. It's possible you could do it with a golf club if you had enough time. So do nothing and bury more kids next month. You guys are good at telling us what can't be done lets hear what you can do?

[spin]

127. A 12 ga pump shotgun can hold up the 8 rounds ...

and can be reloaded quickly.

If you disagree use Google to search for "tactical load pump shotgun"

Revolvers normally hold 6 to 8 rounds and some .22 cal revolvers 10. Revolvers can be reloaded quickly using speed loaders and some use real "clips" which are even faster.

I've noticed that when your side of the debate runs into facts that they can't refute they simply label them NRA talking points and then ignore them as false.

You asked what I would do. It has been suggested here before and ridiculed once again as an NRA talking point, but I would have some form of armed security inside any gun free zone that houses a large number of people.

The reason most of the recent massacres have occurred inside a gun free zone is that the shooter doesn't want to encounter any resistance before he racks up a high score of "kills." Armed security would act as a deterrent and many shooters might decide to avoid those areas with such security and go elsewhere. If the shooter did attack, the armed security might be able to take him our or possibly to slow him up until the police arrived.

It's fairly obvious that our current laws are not working and realistically we are not going to become a gun free society anytime soon.

[bobclark86]

122. I personally don't have a problem

with an AWB... I'm a New Yorker, so I don't know any other way. Not that I think it will actually impact gun violence any, but it wouldn't bother me much. I like the look of walnut and steel in a Mini-14 over the aluminum and plastic of an AR.

I'd much rather see us pump money into a revamped mental health system that can help people, rather than punitive measures against law-abiding citizens.

[kooljerk666]

126. any semi auto with more than 10 rounds=JAIL

possession of clips or mags more than 10 rounds=jail.