Question For Folks Against Gun Control Laws

[Dr. Bob]

How is the wiki article on the 2nd amendment bad source? All it did was highlight multiple rulings. Would it have been better if posted every one of those cases in their entirety?

 

I know it feels good because you think you "got me" but really you didn't. What I copied and pasted is factual and relevant. Is it not?

 

 

I have read all of them. Please show how what you just wrote applies to any post that I made. Thank you.

 

Actually you have indicated repeatedly that you are entitled to own any weapon you feel is appropriate to your 'needs' like AR-15's and 30 round mags. You selectively quoted from a high school level source, picking and choosing specific sections that suited you without looking either at the context or the source rulings, Mal clearly has reviewed both and speaks with far more authority than a cut and paste debate. I suggest again that you review his postings to gain some insight into the material, he summarizes it well.

 

I also put it into rather simple terms, you don't have to belong to the national guard, but what you have can and is regulated.

 

It isn't an issue of 'gotcha', it is more of 'let me explain the issue accurately'. Getting angry, digging your heels in to defend a flawed argument in the fact of the facts and logic, is not the way to improve your position. Make logical arguments based on facts and reasonable interpretation of the actual rulings will go much further.

 

As a side note, there was a very good essay supporting your position referenced in Mal's original post. It hinged around what are considered arms, the types of arms envisioned by the framers of the constitution at the time it was written (it made a good argument for private possession of flame throwers and mid sized howitzers). THAT was a good expression of your position, contrasting your rather concerning angle of 'if I want it it is my right to have it'.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Ok. One more for the road.

 

I have the right to weapons that are not restricted to me. If I get a class 3 I then have the right to those. My right to them was restricted by the NFA.

 

In my mind it is the same as I have a right to free speech. I can not yell fire in a crowded theater because that portion of my right has been restricted.

 

I understand that the proposals are not yet at the point of confiscation or seizure. They got to register them first. The grandfather clause game defeats the entire purpose of legislating guns. There are millions of AR's in circulation. So the supply will dry up in 50 years? What is the point. None.

 

I could absolutely be wrong about everything I say. I will concede as much.

 

Good points everybody. Nice to see some deep thinkers discuss a controversial subject.

 

Be easy everybody.

 

Now this is a very well reasoned and good post.

 

I completely agree with you. We both seem to agree that there are limits, those limits are different with different levels (Class III), and the true heart of the issue has nothing to do with 'rights' it has to do with what the regulations allow. Where we differ is simply what those regulations should and should not allow. THAT is the discussion and I feel now it is a productive discussion.

 

By all means proceed with your reasoning.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

You know, the next gun show I come across, I'm going to get drunk (being essentially a non-drinker that should be easy). Then I am going to have someone drive me there with 4k in my pocket. I'm going to have a look at one of those AR-10's and try to buy it, all the time bitching about the fact it cost FAR less than I have to pay my ex wife each month (actually true). I might even drop some 'slips' about needing to do something about that. Then I'm going to buy some ammunition at the next booth, special stuff if I can get it...you know what I mean. Something with colored paint on the tip.

 

Doc let me know when, I have a couple cousins be glad ride along with us, I will drive. No spliing beer in my truck though. Everything else is ok.

 

Cool, sounds like fun. Got my son a 22 just like I had as a kid, we had a blast. As for the rest, we have to be careful. Don't want to put the dealers in a position to get in trouble. Just want to make a point about the lack of control at these shows over who gets unfettered access to these weapons in exchange for cash.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

You can't use an RPG from your F15 though . . . better pick up some air-to-surface missles of some sort.

 

I would recommend the Maverick, good shaped warhead on that one.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

I would recommend the Maverick, good shaped warhead on that one.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Mavericks are great, and can kill moving targets, for instance vehicles and moving aritillery. GBU's need laser designation, and JDAMS work off of GPS coordinates, This last works in darkness or with cloud cover.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Kinda had a bad attitude earlier. Apologies to all.

 

If you guys end up getting that f15 buzz the tower one time for me!

[Dr. Bob]

OK, let's see if we can come together on this. I was looking at my pilot's license. It says 'single engine, land, instrument rated'. I've been specifically trained and tested and demonstrated competency and safety with these aircraft. I could get additional ratings, such as seaplane and multiengine, after I've been trained and passed a qualifications exam (written/practical).

 

How does this idea strike everyone?

 

What are your thoughts on having various classifications of firearm licenses?

 

Civilian 1 = Hunting, target, and home defense. 10 shot max, 50 cal (unless muzzle loader then up to 58 cal) or less, etc.

Civilian 2 = CPL, special training, qualification with weapon, and screening required.

Civilian 3 = Trained former military and selected civilians with specific training, qualification with weapon and screening required. AR-15, Barrett, etc.

 

Police 1 = Road officer pistol and shotgun trained.

Police 2 = Tactical police, automatic etc.

 

Military = Self explanatory.

 

This way, qualified civilians with demonstrated ability and special training could have an expanded selection of arms, everyone that qualifies for firearm ownership can have basic access to arms used routinely now. High capacity, military style weapons would be reserved to those that are not only trained, but have undergone enhanced screening for ownership for the safety of the community.

[Dr. Bob]

Kinda had a bad attitude earlier. Apologies to all.

 

If you guys end up getting that f15 buzz the tower one time for me!

 

No worries man, this is a high energy discussion and lots of folks get heated up.

[GregS]

Then there are dumb bombs. They are great for dropping in on Ted's asz without guidance. Just eyball him and pickle the weapon when the CCIP cross meets the horizontal mark on his smiling face.

Edited February 6, 2013 by GregS

[CaveatLector]

Kinda had a bad attitude earlier. Apologies to all.

 

If you guys end up getting that f15 buzz the tower one time for me!

Like the doctor said, high energy. People are passionate about this issue. That's why it's at 85 pages thus far.

[Dr. Bob]

In Mal's posting a few pages back there was a reference to an off site essay that offered a reasonable, logical argument expanding the 'right to bear arms'. Since many on the 'pro' side base their arguments on their 'rights' to have military style weapons without 'excessive' regulation or the 'criminals will have them so we want them too', all of which are very poor arguments from the standpoint of logic (and a lack of understand of what is a right vs a privilege) and do little to promote their side of the debate, I'll provide the reference and an explanation of the article for fairness. I don't know if it will fly, but it clearly makes sense and would elevate the discussion to a higher level...

 

http://brainshavings...-and-bear-what/

 

The point of the article is the definition of the words 'arms' as used by the framers of the constitution at the time it was written, and extending it to current times. According to the article, 'arms' as the term was used meant the weapons carried by an individual soldier (rifle, side arm, sword, knives, etc) as part of their militia (National Guard) duties. Heavy weapons such as fortification or naval guns were referred to as 'ordinance' and 'arms' but seemed to be a separate category of weapons. The framers wanted to include individual arms, but perhaps not these heavier weapons (ordinance).

 

The logical extension of this to the modern world is to look at individual weapons carried by soldiers, weapons employed by company level units (militia), and national defense assets. The second extension is to look at the level of existing firepower available vs what is employed by the individual soldier. In the time of the Constitution heavy naval guns were available, but the average soldier possessed weapons that were some fraction of the destruction power of a naval gun. That fraction was what was envisioned as 'arms' as noted in the Constitution.

 

Looking at the individual soldier of the 21st Century in this context shows he or she has access to the following weapons: Rifle (automatic), Pistol (semi-automatic), Grenade, Directional Mine (Claymore), Knives/Bayonet, the M-204 (or 203 I don't remember) grenade launcher/rifle, flame throwers, and explosive rockets (LAW). A reasonable case could be made to allow access to these weapons to the general public under the heading of 'arms'. While giving access is one thing, regulating that access within reason would also be allowed.

 

The next category would be what I refer to as 'national defense assets'. This would include combat aircraft, combat ships, tanks, nuclear weapons, HEAVY artillery found in fixed locations (rather than fielded with maneuver units) such as a 155 mm howitzer, etc and would be excluded from 'arms' available for private ownership.

 

The final category, as noted in the article, is one that is 'debatable' but DOES have a reasonable and decent constitutional basis. The best way to describe this group is 'company level crew served' weapons. Included in this group, which would be considered 'militia level' weapons include, but aren't limited to, crew served machine guns (the classic M-60 of my military experience), mortars, packable anti-tank rockets, up to and including say a 105 mm Howitzer. While not strictly 'individual' weapons, these are 'standard fare' for 'militia' and were representative of the relative destructive level of weapons routinely available to militia at the time the Constitution was written.

 

Under this argument, the case could be made for private ownership of automatic assault rifles and light field pieces. There is nothing that says 'unrestricted or unregulated' access. For example it is VERY reasonable, even under this argument, to say individual ownership of assault rifles (and/or a side arm) was ok, but crew served weapons, mines, flame throwers, etc could be kept under tighter control in community based armories and only available for organized drill/actual employment in the field.

 

This is similar to my Enfield deer rifle in College. I was allowed to have the rifle on campus, but obviously couldn't keep it in the dorm at MSU. It was stored, with all the other student's weapons, at the police department. I went down, showed my ID and they gave me my rifle. When I was done hunting or target shooting, I cleaned it in the field and turned it back in. Access was to be granted unless there was a clear reason not to give up the rifle. For example if I was intoxicated or verbally threatening someone, I would have expected them NOT to give me the weapon, otherwise they handed it over without hesitation.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited February 6, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[SFC]

Lmao. 85 pages of you guys pi$$ing in the wind. To bad for you the lawmakers aren't buying in like you are, eh.

[Restorium2]

WASHINGTON -- House lawmakers on Tuesday unveiled their first bipartisan bill targeting gun violence in this Congress: a measure to make firearms trafficking a federal crime.

During a press event, the bill's sponsors -- Reps. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.), Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), Scott Rigell (R-Va.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) -- said their legislation would create a single section of federal code to give law enforcement the ability to prosecute gun traffickers. It would also impose up to 20 years in jail for "straw purchasers," or those who buy guns for people prohibited from buying them on their own. Their measure is among the recommendations included in the gun violence package put forward last month by President Barack Obama.

"As a lifetime member of the NRA, as a firearm owner, as a father ... I've got a problem with people who break the law using firearms because it inevitably puts pressure on my rights," Rigell said. "When we punish the bad guys, we're protecting the good guys. That's really the essence of the bill."

Meehan said he is "glad to be able to reach across the aisle and work toward common sense solutions" like their gun trafficking bill, which he noted has a companion bill in the Senate.

The issue was more personal for Cummings, who lost his nephew to gun violence a year and a half ago. It is "a painful thing" to see "the blood of a loved one splattered on walls," Cummings said. Family members of victims are "begging us to address" gun violence and "disregard partisan rhetoric" in order to take meaningful action, he said.

Their bill is significant because it shows that something, anything, related to guns has at least some bipartisan support in the House. But the real question is whether or not House Republican leaders plan to let any gun bills come to the floor for votes.

Rigell said he hasn't talked to party leaders about his bill yet, but he has thus far found them to be "very open to good ideas."

"I look forward to talking with them because we've got to take the next step, which is to get the bill to the floor," he continued. He noted that he's spoken with several GOP colleagues about the bill and found that "generally, they're very supportive." Meehan said that he, too, has talked about the measure with fellow Republicans and said he's "encouraged" by their discussions.

For now, all eyes are on the Senate, where any gun legislation will first have to pass. Hill aides and gun policy advocates said Monday that they expect some type of gun package to advance in the Senate with three core pieces -- a universal background check for firearms sales, a federal trafficking law and a ban on high-capacity magazines -- but nothing is certain at this stage.

Asked about the prospect of combining their bill with another gun measure, such as background check legislation, the House lawmakers soured.

"Personally, I think that's a mistake," Rigell said. "This bill is narrow in scope."

Maloney warned that their bill could lose support in that scenario, and highlighted the importance of moving whatever standalone measures can pass.

"This is one of those rare time when everyone agrees," she said.

UPDATE: 5:30 p.m. -- An NRA spokesman told HuffPost the group has not taken a position on the new bill, but said it plans to "work with Congress as this bill makes its way through the legislative process."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/gun-control-bill_n_2624644.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[SFC]

Narrow...

[GregS]

Typical.

[mrd]

Does anyone here even discuss the fact that there is a problem with gun violence in America? What is a solution to gun violence in America? Having guns as a solution does not seem to work. Fearful folks collecting more and more powerful guns because they live in fear of others having powerful guns and bad intent, has not reduced gun violence. Has it?

 

Tell me what would make us safer?

 

In cars which are, whether we like it or not weigh a terrible toll on both the driver and innocent people affected in accidents. Years ago I had read that over 115 million people have died (the number has to be a lot higher by now) since the invention of the car, because of car accidents. Now there is some effort to make cars safer and the result is that less people per number of cars and in total, die each year to those causes. Anyone object to that? ( for fun look up the you tube video of a modern Chevy Malibu hitting a 1959 Malibu, despite the older car being much bigger, the modern car rips through the older.)

 

Is their a similar effort to protect us from death and injuries from guns? If not then we are all fools to an ever expanding industry that is more concerned with convincing their customers that they need to protect themselves from the ever increasing firepower by buying bigger and more powerful weapons, that the same companies sell to the government. Has this made us safer?

 

Follow the money. It tells the tale.We are being gamed.

Edited February 6, 2013 by mrd

[Wild Bill]

Here is a link to the Feinstein bill.

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

[1lluminated1]

Here is a link to the Feinstein bill. Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

 

Thanks for sharing wild bill. Alot of people here claim they are not trying to take away our guns, just regulate them. However some politicians have other things in mind, like feinstein.

 

Make no mistake, this gun control agenda is not about keeping children safe... It is about controlling the people and stripping away our constitutional rights.

[1lluminated1]

Sandy Hook Father Speaks on Gun Control and Violence

 

[OG Fire Beaster]

OK, let's see if we can come together on this. I was looking at my pilot's license. It says 'single engine, land, instrument rated'. I've been specifically trained and tested and demonstrated competency and safety with these aircraft. I could get additional ratings, such as seaplane and multiengine, after I've been trained and passed a qualifications exam (written/practical).

 

How does this idea strike everyone?

 

What are your thoughts on having various classifications of firearm licenses?

 

Civilian 1 = Hunting, target, and home defense. 10 shot max, 50 cal (unless muzzle loader then up to 58 cal) or less, etc.

Civilian 2 = CPL, special training, qualification with weapon, and screening required.

Civilian 3 = Trained former military and selected civilians with specific training, qualification with weapon and screening required. AR-15, Barrett, etc.

 

Police 1 = Road officer pistol and shotgun trained.

Police 2 = Tactical police, automatic etc.

 

Military = Self explanatory.

 

This way, qualified civilians with demonstrated ability and special training could have an expanded selection of arms, everyone that qualifies for firearm ownership can have basic access to arms used routinely now. High capacity, military style weapons would be reserved to those that are not only trained, but have undergone enhanced screening for ownership for the safety of the community.

 

Something along these lines is not unreasonable. We have a license to drive a car which requires training/certification. We don't just let anybody carry hazardous materials on our roads. Just because someone is in the military they don't just get a gun they must qualify regularly. Proper training and education seems like a good fit to some of the problems that we are facing. I like this idea and the comparison to aviation certs. It could allow more freedom to the people that can demonstrate their responsibility and competence.

 

I've been guilty of looking at this issue in black and white terms. We live in a grey world.

[MysteryMan]

OK, let's see if we can come together on this. I was looking at my pilot's license. It says 'single engine, land, instrument rated'. I've been specifically trained and tested and demonstrated competency and safety with these aircraft. I could get additional ratings, such as seaplane and multiengine, after I've been trained and passed a qualifications exam (written/practical).

 

How does this idea strike everyone?

 

What are your thoughts on having various classifications of firearm licenses?

 

Civilian 1 = Hunting, target, and home defense. 10 shot max, 50 cal (unless muzzle loader then up to 58 cal) or less, etc.

Civilian 2 = CPL, special training, qualification with weapon, and screening required.

Civilian 3 = Trained former military and selected civilians with specific training, qualification with weapon and screening required. AR-15, Barrett, etc.

 

Police 1 = Road officer pistol and shotgun trained.

Police 2 = Tactical police, automatic etc.

 

Military = Self explanatory.

 

This way, qualified civilians with demonstrated ability and special training could have an expanded selection of arms, everyone that qualifies for firearm ownership can have basic access to arms used routinely now. High capacity, military style weapons would be reserved to those that are not only trained, but have undergone enhanced screening for ownership for the safety of the community.

 

My thoughts is this. they class to much bunny muffin as is..... ineffectively.

 

Either leave it as it is, or pry weapons from cold hands. I believe the right to bear arms never said, "Lets classify this so we get it right"

[mrd]

c

 

 

Classify versus regulate.. To regulate you have to figure out what you are regulating and how you are regulating under specific circumstances. Classification is part of the process since you are not treating all things or situations as alike. So they can classify arms. The courts have said so and the same court has said you do have the right to bear arms. So you cannot just bear any arms. You can bear arms as regulation warrants. In my opinion the gun manufacturers do not want limitations on what ever weapons of destruction they can sell so that is the line they like to feed you. No don't take away our iron teats we need them to live as free men! You think it is about freedom its all about the money, They tell you that someone is going to take your gun, your magazine , your ammo away and they start the equivalent of a run on the bank. Sorry but you guys are tools.

 

Tthe problem with guns is that they in themselves do not produce anything unless you are in the raping and pillaging end of things. So effort is made in their design and production and then we take our hard earned dollars and we buy guns. Now there are some guns that are valued as collectables but most modern guns are mass produced in large quantities. So they are not likely to go up too much in value if at all. So it is fair to say that unless you are in the business of trading guns then they are not going to make you money and they do not do any work. Unless you hunt. Other than that you buy a gun out of fear or to be aggressive with it. If people used their money to making things that increase our nation it would be better.. i do not see how guns do that. Progress in guns does not mean happier healthier lives. So they gin up fear and aggression against some nebulous enemy. Then they make sure they have lots of inventory and then they open up the doors.

Edited February 7, 2013 by mrd

[Celliach]

Thanks for sharing wild bill. Alot of people here claim they are not trying to take away our guns, just regulate them. However some politicians have other things in mind, like feinstein.

 

Make no mistake, this gun control agenda is not about keeping children safe... It is about controlling the people and stripping away our constitutional rights.

 

There is a difference between what people on the extremes in congress want and what will actually pass. Feinstein doesn't have a chance in hell to pass that.

 

Instead of talking about the extremes, we should be discussing what actually has a chance of passing.

[Celliach]

Where was everyone that's concerned about our constitutional rights when Bush started using "free speech areas" during the Iraq War?

[Dr. Bob]

Well at least there is some interest in discussing the classification system. Personally I believe it is reasonable and legal, it is an alternative to the current system that allows for registration, training, and screening which will take a step toward a good goal- keep weapons in the hands of those trained to use them and tested in that training. Some screening clearly is indicated to make sure these weapons are possessed by those fit to have them.

 

Dr. Bob