Gun Vote " Shameful Day," Obama Says

[beechguy]

TO: F430murci:

Great generalization but not statistically significant ... And please tell me how owning an 'assault rifle, body armor and ammo is against the law in Montana... If it was half the population of Montana would be subject to arrest. Anecdotal stories do not statistics make..

It will be statistically significant to the two year old daughter that lost her mother, dad will be in jail and she will be raised by relatives. It is signficant to those poor children waterboarded and subjected to child abuse. I actually feel sorry for you if you cannot see that and that your attachment or feeling of entitlement overrides your ability to have compassion or empathy for those that suffer. It is what it is. You guys can win this debate, because with that mentaility you are actually the losers.

There are a few bad apples in every bunch, and they should be punished when they break the law. By the way, how many lawyers have committed crimes?

Edited April 25, 2013 by beechguy

[JDGRUEN]

TO: F430murci:

Great generalization but not statistically significant ... And please tell me how owning an 'assault rifle, body armor and ammo is against the law in Montana... If it was half the population of Montana would be subject to arrest. Anecdotal stories do not statistics make..

It will be statistically significant to the two year old daughter that lost her mother, dad will be in jail and she will be raised by relatives. It is signficant to those poor children waterboarded and subjected to child abuse. I actually feel sorry for you if you cannot see that and that your attachment or feeling of entitlement overrides your ability to have compassion or empathy for those that suffer. It is what it is. You guys can win this debate, because with that mentaility you are actually the losers.

The gun rights debate is not about a 'feeling of entitlement' - it is about Constitutional rights. People like me have plenty of empathy for people - children,wives, husbands who are abused, maimed or killed. I just have doubts about the completeness of your anecdotal story and of the facts of these cases. You raise emotion about people harmed by guns and use a domestic violence case to bolster your point of view. But far more domestic violence cases involve clubs, baseball bats, knives, fists, pots of hot boiling water, iron frying pans, etc. than involve guns - and the harm to people is just as grave. So -- where do you start to lessen the problem? Only with guns I suppose? And - whether you implied it or not - it is not just men who initiate domestic violence in the U.S. The 2nd. Amendment is about self-defense and defending our country and our rights against a tyrannical government - which now exist in the USA. If you don't subscribe to this belief then that is your choice - but tens of millions of American agree with me. You can give up your rights - but don't get into giving away mine.

[Bikkii]

It always surprises me that gun issues in the US make so much news, and that others make so much noise about it.

The US has far fewer gun deaths per capita than the most dangerous countries, including Thailand. If you want to keep busy, just read the news in Thailand, with less than 1/5 the population.

Here's a chart showing gun murders per 100,000 people, which would calm logical minds. I doubt if it will affect irrational or hysterical minds which are run by emotion instead of facts.

Link

Do you have access to a similar chart that shows the proportion of massacres of young school children and cinema goers?

I do have a chart....of the tens of millions of UNARMED civilians that perished under the rule of Stalin, Mao and Hitler...

Tyrants hate an armed population!!!!

The current debate in the US has nothing to do with a few random shootings..

It's all about -eventually- removing guns from the populace...

Sure this chart tells a story, but unfortunately it is flawed. What is the population of the US compared with South Africa and Paraguay ahead of it? Per individual head these smaller countries are worse, but per incident the US leaves them in its wake!

[SeaVisionBurma]

Inflammatory off topic post removed.

Voicing your opinion is fine - but please keep it on topic, polite, and civil towards other members.

[beechguy]

It always surprises me that gun issues in the US make so much news, and that others make so much noise about it.

The US has far fewer gun deaths per capita than the most dangerous countries, including Thailand. If you want to keep busy, just read the news in Thailand, with less than 1/5 the population.

Here's a chart showing gun murders per 100,000 people, which would calm logical minds. I doubt if it will affect irrational or hysterical minds which are run by emotion instead of facts.

Link

Do you have access to a similar chart that shows the proportion of massacres of young school children and cinema goers?

I do have a chart....of the tens of millions of UNARMED civilians that perished under the rule of Stalin, Mao and Hitler...

Tyrants hate an armed population!!!!

The current debate in the US has nothing to do with a few random shootings..

It's all about -eventually- removing guns from the populace...

Sure this chart tells a story, but unfortunately it is flawed. What is the population of the US compared with South Africa and Paraguay ahead of it? Per individual head these smaller countries are worse, but per incident the US leaves them in its wake!

That's why they use incidents per 100K in population.

[snarky66]

The gun rights debate is not about a 'feeling of entitlement' - it is about Constitutional rights. People like me have plenty of empathy for people - children,wives, husbands who are abused, maimed or killed. I just have doubts about the completeness of your anecdotal story and of the facts of these cases. You raise emotion about people harmed by guns and use a domestic violence case to bolster your point of view. But far more domestic violence cases involve clubs, baseball bats, knives, fists, pots of hot boiling water, iron frying pans, etc. than involve guns - and the harm to people is just as grave. So -- where do you start to lessen the problem? Only with guns I suppose? And - whether you implied it or not - it is not just men who initiate domestic violence in the U.S. The 2nd. Amendment is about self-defense and defending our country and our rights against a tyrannical government - which now exist in the USA. If you don't subscribe to this belief then that is your choice - but tens of millions of American agree with me. You can give up your rights - but don't get into giving away mine.

Exactly correct. There are a lot of people out there who dislike guns.

Exercise your right to not own a gun. Do not attempt to take away my right to own as many weapons as I choose to.

Sensible gun laws exist. Thompson sub machine guns are banned. So are MAC10's & UZI's. Because all of these are full automatic weapons.

I doubt very much you can open carry onto an airplane.

So plenty of "common sense" gun laws exist & we comply with them.

Today's current hysteria is radical leftists like schumer continuing with the "fundamental transformation" loon wing ideas from progressives like teddy roosevelt, woodrow wilson, frankie roosevelt, lyndon johnson & bho.

A vast majority of the people reject fundamental transformation. We are quite happy with the status quo. Mostly people who work for a living & pay taxes.

Edited April 25, 2013 by snarky66

[NeverSure]

It always surprises me that gun issues in the US make so much news, and that others make so much noise about it.

The US has far fewer gun deaths per capita than the most dangerous countries, including Thailand. If you want to keep busy, just read the news in Thailand, with less than 1/5 the population.

Here's a chart showing gun murders per 100,000 people, which would calm logical minds. I doubt if it will affect irrational or hysterical minds which are run by emotion instead of facts.

Link

Do you have access to a similar chart that shows the proportion of massacres of young school children and cinema goers?

I do have a chart....of the tens of millions of UNARMED civilians that perished under the rule of Stalin, Mao and Hitler...

Tyrants hate an armed population!!!!

The current debate in the US has nothing to do with a few random shootings..

It's all about -eventually- removing guns from the populace...

Sure this chart tells a story, but unfortunately it is flawed. What is the population of the US compared with South Africa and Paraguay ahead of it? Per individual head these smaller countries are worse, but per incident the US leaves them in its wake!

That's an uneducated statement. Have you taken a class in statistics? If you are on an island with just ten people, and one out of the ten will be murdered, your chances of being murdered are one in ten. If you are in a place with 1 million people where the chances of being murdered are one in ten, then 100,000 people will be murdered, and your personal chance of being murdered don't change.

But if you are on a small island with just ten people and the murder rate is 9 out of ten, then you have a 90% chance of being one of the 9 murder victims. You are therefore in much more danger than you would be in the place where 100,000 people are murdered.

Thailand is a place where your chances of being murdered with a gun are ten times what they are in the US. Thailand is one of the most dangerous places on earth, even with traffic accidents.

The reason this is on topic and is important, is that many posters who are whining about guns in the US are posting from a place that is ten times more dangerous.

Ten times, literally.

[F430murci]

The gun rights debate is not about a 'feeling of entitlement' - it is about Constitutional rights. People like me have plenty of empathy for people - children,wives, husbands who are abused, maimed or killed. I just have doubts about the completeness of your anecdotal story and of the facts of these cases. You raise emotion about people harmed by guns and use a domestic violence case to bolster your point of view. But far more domestic violence cases involve clubs, baseball bats, knives, fists, pots of hot boiling water, iron frying pans, etc. than involve guns - and the harm to people is just as grave. So -- where do you start to lessen the problem? Only with guns I suppose? And - whether you implied it or not - it is not just men who initiate domestic violence in the U.S. The 2nd. Amendment is about self-defense and defending our country and our rights against a tyrannical government - which now exist in the USA. If you don't subscribe to this belief then that is your choice - but tens of millions of American agree with me. You can give up your rights - but don't get into giving away mine.

Exactly correct. There are a lot of people out there who dislike guns.

Exercise your right to not own a gun. Do not attempt to take away my right to own as many weapons as I choose to.

Sensible gun laws exist. Thompson sub machine guns are banned. So are MAC10's & UZI's. Because all of these are full automatic weapons.

I doubt very much you can open carry onto an airplane.

So plenty of "common sense" gun laws exist & we comply with them.

Today's current hysteria is radical leftists like schumer continuing with the "fundamental transformation" loon wing ideas from progressives like teddy roosevelt, woodrow wilson, frankie roosevelt, lyndon johnson & bho.

A vast majority of the people reject fundamental transformation. We are quite happy with the status quo. Mostly people who work for a living & pay taxes.

I own a gun. I dislike whacko nut jobs having easy access to semi automatic assualt rifles with 30 clip magazines. I am totally cool with someone responsible owning one if that is the law.

I really am not looking to debate because it is an exercise in futility. I completely respect Beech guy's statement about lawyers also commit crimes. That is a rationale statement even though mostly financial and not killing mom, dad, brother sister and etc. I still get the point and don't disagree.

I respect neversure's belief in what he does and I am sure he promotes gun safety 100 %. That is dude's livelihood and people have to and derserve to make a living in the US. That is cool by my provided he follows the law. I am sure he probably would also exercise caution or restraint if some whack job he was suspicious about tried to purchase from him.

Please stop with all of the constutiotnal crap. Candidly, you are wrong unless talking about a shot gun, pistol, hunting rifles and etc. That stuff is constitutionally protected and only a paranoid schizo would actually believe the government or liberals are trying to take those away. I have read Heller and listened to Scalia on this. I was actually amazed that Scalia went public on this opinion as Justices rarely do, but people, such as some on here, were misreading his opinion.

Peace out guys. This is good for entertainment value, but it is an exercise in futility. Money talks and bs walks. It is the way of the US and gun lobby has lots of it.

[NeverSure]

The gun rights debate is not about a 'feeling of entitlement' - it is about Constitutional rights. People like me have plenty of empathy for people - children,wives, husbands who are abused, maimed or killed. I just have doubts about the completeness of your anecdotal story and of the facts of these cases. You raise emotion about people harmed by guns and use a domestic violence case to bolster your point of view. But far more domestic violence cases involve clubs, baseball bats, knives, fists, pots of hot boiling water, iron frying pans, etc. than involve guns - and the harm to people is just as grave. So -- where do you start to lessen the problem? Only with guns I suppose? And - whether you implied it or not - it is not just men who initiate domestic violence in the U.S. The 2nd. Amendment is about self-defense and defending our country and our rights against a tyrannical government - which now exist in the USA. If you don't subscribe to this belief then that is your choice - but tens of millions of American agree with me. You can give up your rights - but don't get into giving away mine.

Exactly correct. There are a lot of people out there who dislike guns.

Exercise your right to not own a gun. Do not attempt to take away my right to own as many weapons as I choose to.

Sensible gun laws exist. Thompson sub machine guns are banned. So are MAC10's & UZI's. Because all of these are full automatic weapons.

I doubt very much you can open carry onto an airplane.

So plenty of "common sense" gun laws exist & we comply with them.

Today's current hysteria is radical leftists like schumer continuing with the "fundamental transformation" loon wing ideas from progressives like teddy roosevelt, woodrow wilson, frankie roosevelt, lyndon johnson & bho.

A vast majority of the people reject fundamental transformation. We are quite happy with the status quo. Mostly people who work for a living & pay taxes.

I own a gun. I dislike whacko nut jobs having easy access to semi automatic assualt rifles with 30 clip magazines. I am totally cool with someone responsible owning one if that is the law.

I really am not looking to debate because it is an exercise in futility. I completely respect Beech guy's statement about lawyers also commit crimes. That is a rationale statement even though mostly financial and not killing mom, dad, brother sister and etc. I still get the point and don't disagree.

I respect neversure's belief in what he does and I am sure he promotes gun safety 100 %. That is dude's livelihood and people have to and derserve to make a living in the US. That is cool by my provided he follows the law. I am sure he probably would also exercise caution or restraint if some whack job he was suspicious about tried to purchase from him.

Please stop with all of the constutiotnal crap. Candidly, you are wrong unless talking about a shot gun, pistol, hunting rifles and etc. That stuff is constitutionally protected and only a paranoid schizo would actually believe the government or liberals are trying to take those away. I have read Heller and listened to Scalia on this. I was actually amazed that Scalia went public on this opinion as Justices rarely do, but people, such as some on here, were misreading his opinion.

Peace out guys. This is good for entertainment value, but it is an exercise in futility. Money talks and bs walks. It is the way of the US and gun lobby has lots of it.

You are totally confused about "all of this constitutional crap" and apparently Justice Scalia's opinion which he authored on the subject. He actually:

"Scalia authored a 5-4 ruling that struck down D.C.’s law banning handguns and as well as its requirement that owners purchase and use a gun lock and keep their guns unloaded. He took on a liberal shibboleth that the Second Amendment only applies to well-regulated militias and not to individuals. No, he said, the constitutional protection applies to individuals, too." Link

Now, I intentionally quoted a liberal author who didn't like the ruling and tried to put spin on it. But the fact is what it is.

Scalia wasn't referencing in particular the part about a militia because that is settled law and wasn't in the suit. He was going farther and saying that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms extends to the individual.

Now if you think that through, even those who still want to debate the "militia" part erroneously, have to give it up because the right extends to the individual according to the Supreme Court Ruling which Scalia authored.

This is not 200+ year old, outdated thinking. This is a recent ruling, and is current and modern law. Court rulings are part of the body of laws, you know.

I don't make a living at all with guns. I have some licensing and some certifications with guns to extend my knowledge and my rights with guns. All I am is a citizen you don't want to f with if your plans are to hurt someone. I join millions of others in that category.

I think you're almost there. If you could just get some facts straight, I think you'd be there.

[Jingthing]

Do deranged felons have a constitutional right to buy a machine gun out of a vending machine at 3 in the morning? Is that what Scalia ruled? Of course not! Which means, OBVIOUSLY, that a huge range of REGULATIONS and limitations are 100 percent constitutional.

[Loptr]

Do deranged felons have a constitutional right to buy a machine gun out of a vending machine at 3 in the morning? Is that what Scalia ruled? Of course not! Which means, OBVIOUSLY, that a huge range of REGULATIONS and limitations are 100 percent constitutional.

Err, no, they don't. In fact, to own an automatic weapon in the US you must go through an FBI background check, then be approved by the ATF, then and only then can you be issued a Class 3 automatic weapons license, which costs $200. After which, at any time, the ATF can enter your residence or place of storage for said automatic weapon and demand to inspect it and to assure that it is secure. Now I'm sure you didn't really mean "automatic" weapons JT, but I thought I would educate you on the REAL process for the average Joe to get their hands on a real automatic weapon in the US. Hopefully you can see that the problem is not regulations or laws. The problem is that weapons get into the hands of the bad guys. It's not the everyday law-abiding citizen you have to worry about, which is exactly who is being targeted by the hand-whinging PC crowd that wants to check your nappy every 5 minutes to make sure you haven't crapped yourself.

Now if we just keep Eric Holder and his band of merry men from shipping assault weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico, we may have a good start.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Loptr

[Jingthing]

My point was not about the type of gun! Jeez.

Again, to filter out the gun nerd noise:

Do deranged felons have a constitutional right to buy a machine gun out of a vending machine at 3 in the morning? Is that what Scalia ruled? Of course not! Which means, OBVIOUSLY, that a huge range of REGULATIONS and limitations are 100 percent constitutional.

The point is most any kind of regulatory law about guns is totally constitutional, even with Scalia's radical right wing ruling, if it falls short of confiscating all guns from law abiding citizens, which nobody politically sane is trying to do.

Illegal guns in the hands of crims? Fine. Step up enforcement aggressively for having the guns illegally.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Jingthing

[F430murci]

The gun rights debate is not about a 'feeling of entitlement' - it is about Constitutional rights. People like me have plenty of empathy for people - children,wives, husbands who are abused, maimed or killed. I just have doubts about the completeness of your anecdotal story and of the facts of these cases. You raise emotion about people harmed by guns and use a domestic violence case to bolster your point of view. But far more domestic violence cases involve clubs, baseball bats, knives, fists, pots of hot boiling water, iron frying pans, etc. than involve guns - and the harm to people is just as grave. So -- where do you start to lessen the problem? Only with guns I suppose? And - whether you implied it or not - it is not just men who initiate domestic violence in the U.S. The 2nd. Amendment is about self-defense and defending our country and our rights against a tyrannical government - which now exist in the USA. If you don't subscribe to this belief then that is your choice - but tens of millions of American agree with me. You can give up your rights - but don't get into giving away mine.

Exactly correct. There are a lot of people out there who dislike guns.

Exercise your right to not own a gun. Do not attempt to take away my right to own as many weapons as I choose to.

Sensible gun laws exist. Thompson sub machine guns are banned. So are MAC10's & UZI's. Because all of these are full automatic weapons.

I doubt very much you can open carry onto an airplane.

So plenty of "common sense" gun laws exist & we comply with them.

Today's current hysteria is radical leftists like schumer continuing with the "fundamental transformation" loon wing ideas from progressives like teddy roosevelt, woodrow wilson, frankie roosevelt, lyndon johnson & bho.

A vast majority of the people reject fundamental transformation. We are quite happy with the status quo. Mostly people who work for a living & pay taxes.

I own a gun. I dislike whacko nut jobs having easy access to semi automatic assualt rifles with 30 clip magazines. I am totally cool with someone responsible owning one if that is the law.

I really am not looking to debate because it is an exercise in futility. I completely respect Beech guy's statement about lawyers also commit crimes. That is a rationale statement even though mostly financial and not killing mom, dad, brother sister and etc. I still get the point and don't disagree.

I respect neversure's belief in what he does and I am sure he promotes gun safety 100 %. That is dude's livelihood and people have to and derserve to make a living in the US. That is cool by my provided he follows the law. I am sure he probably would also exercise caution or restraint if some whack job he was suspicious about tried to purchase from him.

Please stop with all of the constutiotnal crap. Candidly, you are wrong unless talking about a shot gun, pistol, hunting rifles and etc. That stuff is constitutionally protected and only a paranoid schizo would actually believe the government or liberals are trying to take those away. I have read Heller and listened to Scalia on this. I was actually amazed that Scalia went public on this opinion as Justices rarely do, but people, such as some on here, were misreading his opinion.

Peace out guys. This is good for entertainment value, but it is an exercise in futility. Money talks and bs walks. It is the way of the US and gun lobby has lots of it.

You are totally confused about "all of this constitutional crap" and apparently Justice Scalia's opinion which he authored on the subject. He actually:

"Scalia authored a 5-4 ruling that struck down D.C.’s law banning handguns and as well as its requirement that owners purchase and use a gun lock and keep their guns unloaded. He took on a liberal shibboleth that the Second Amendment only applies to well-regulated militias and not to individuals. No, he said, the constitutional protection applies to individuals, too." Link

Now, I intentionally quoted a liberal author who didn't like the ruling and tried to put spin on it. But the fact is what it is.

Scalia wasn't referencing in particular the part about a militia because that is settled law and wasn't in the suit. He was going farther and saying that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms extends to the individual.

Now if you think that through, even those who still want to debate the "militia" part erroneously, have to give it up because the right extends to the individual according to the Supreme Court Ruling which Scalia authored.

This is not 200+ year old, outdated thinking. This is a recent ruling, and is current and modern law. Court rulings are part of the body of laws, you know.

I don't make a living at all with guns. I have some licensing and some certifications with guns to extend my knowledge and my rights with guns. All I am is a citizen you don't want to f with if your plans are to hurt someone. I join millions of others in that category.

I think you're almost there. If you could just get some facts straight, I think you'd be there.

Now read what I wrote that you responded to about con law issues, including sentences after it and Scalia's comments, and read the below. (i.e, I said 2nd amendment protect rights to own simple pistols, shot guns and simple hunting rifles.). That's all. Where to draw the line on unprotected or dangerous and unsual weapons becomes the issue . . .

Actual text from Heller opinion:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

Scalia on Fox News during July 29, 2012, interview with Chris Wallace:

Establishment “originalist” Scalia tells “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace why, when they wrote “shall not be infringed,” the Framers really meant to say “subject to reasonable restrictions.”

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told "Fox News Sunday" that "the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons."

Examiner commentary regarding Chris Wallace interview with Scalia:

"While treated as a breaking revelation to the point of garnering the headline position on The Drudge Report at this writing, in big red letters, no less, Scalia’s position is hardly news to those who pay attention to such things. The 2008 opinion he wrote for the majority in the landmark District of Columbia v Heller case made that clear, causing no small amount of consternation among gun rights advocates."

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” Scalia asserted. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example . . . Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

This is neither liberal nor conservative. It is very costly legal research from westlaw . . .

The United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), cautioned that like most constitutional rights, the individual right to keep and bear arms, and to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, is not an unlimited right to carry arms for any sort of confrontation and that, as recognized by prior commentary and case law, it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. The Court therefore not only identified presumptively lawful regulatory measures but also recognized an important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms based on the type of weapon in question. The Court stated that, as prior case law, U.S. v. Miller, 1939-1 C.B. 373, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206, 39-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9513, 22 A.F.T.R. (P-H) ¶331 (1939), had explained, the sorts of weapons protected by the Second Amendment are those in common use at the time of its adoption, a limitation that the Court stated was supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." Note that in a later

district court opinion in that case, Heller v. District of Columbia, 698 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2010), a case construing the District of Columbia Firearms Registration Amendment Act, which was promulgated in an effort to cure the constitutional defects in District of Columbia firearms laws identified in the Heller case, the court held that a ban on assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices did not violate the Second Amendment, holding that these had properly been determined by the District of Columbia Council to be "military-style weapons of war," made for offensive military use, and holding that the ban on large capacity ammunition feeding devices was not to be equated with the trigger lock regulation that the Heller case had invalidated.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.v.

HELLER

certiorari to the united

states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Edited April 25, 2013 by F430murci

[NeverSure]

You are totally confused about "all of this constitutional crap" and apparently Justice Scalia's opinion which he authored on the subject. He actually:

"Scalia authored a 5-4 ruling that struck down D.C.’s law banning handguns and as well as its requirement that owners purchase and use a gun lock and keep their guns unloaded. He took on a liberal shibboleth that the Second Amendment only applies to well-regulated militias and not to individuals. No, he said, the constitutional protection applies to individuals, too." Link

Now, I intentionally quoted a liberal author who didn't like the ruling and tried to put spin on it. But the fact is what it is.

Scalia wasn't referencing in particular the part about a militia because that is settled law and wasn't in the suit. He was going farther and saying that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms extends to the individual.

Now if you think that through, even those who still want to debate the "militia" part erroneously, have to give it up because the right extends to the individual according to the Supreme Court Ruling which Scalia authored.

This is not 200+ year old, outdated thinking. This is a recent ruling, and is current and modern law. Court rulings are part of the body of laws, you know.

I don't make a living at all with guns. I have some licensing and some certifications with guns to extend my knowledge and my rights with guns. All I am is a citizen you don't want to f with if your plans are to hurt someone. I join millions of others in that category.

I think you're almost there. If you could just get some facts straight, I think you'd be there.

Now read what I wrote that you responded to about con law issues, including sentences after it and Scalia's comments, and read the below. (i.e, I said 2nd amendment protect rights to own simple pistols, shot guns and simple hunting rifles.). That's all. Where to draw the line on unprotected or dangerous and unsualy weapons becomes the issue . . .

Actual text from Heller opinion:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

*snipped*

These points have been well established in this thread. It is recognized that some types of weapons (arms) are not allowed in the hands of civilians. That includes bombs and hand grenades.

However, whenever looking at law, you have to look at precedent. What is allowed? What do they issue special permits for, what don't you need a permit for, and what is outright banned? That should tell you what is deemed lawful.

Recently there was an attempt by a minority to ban semi-automatic somethings, the definition of which they couldn't agree on. This lack of ability to define and agree was part of the problem of getting it passed.

What is an "assault rifle"? Is it any rifle that is black? Is it any rifle that is semi-automatic? If so, does that include semi-automatic shotguns, which are in abundance? Does it include any semi automatic hunting rifle of which there are many, some costing thousands of dollars with their hand-picked and hand engraved beautiful walnut stocks? Would it apply even though those hunting rifles are ultra polished, have gorgeous hand engraving and gold inlay in the metal parts? Again would it apply to the same quality of shotgun, or would these gorgeous hunting rifles and shotguns be exempt because the aren't black?

Is semi automatic the devil here? If so, what is semi automatic? Is that a gun that doesn't have to be cocked between each shot, but rather fires a round every time you simply pull the trigger? If so, by that definition, the common decades old double action revolver is an "assault weapon."

The term assault weapon is coined by the liberals to denounce gun owners. I can turn a screwdriver into an assault weapon simply by stabbing someone with it a few times.

The discussion is always based on ignorance of the weapons, and even the Senate proved that. They couldn't write a law with a good definition of assault weapon. Every weapon is an assault weapon in the wrong hands.

I'm not allowed to post it here or I'd show you a vid of a guy putting so many rounds through a 6 shot revolver using a speed loader that it would boggle the mind. Not only that, he's incredibly accurate, putting each shot on target. He could mow down a theater with 100 people in it in no time, with almost no misses and maybe no misses.

But he won't because he's a good, law abiding citizen.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Scott

[wellred]

Ok clever cloggs. Keep living in your semi automatic protected bubble and act like things are better this way.

Say you go to the 7/11 tomorrow and someone happens to kill a loved one of yours. Will you not perhaps even think that if such weapons were not able to make it into civilians hands that might have not happened? Ponder that and whilst you do remember for a lot of people this happens every day thanks to your constitutional right to bear arms.

Reading stories like these kind if reminds me of when Dubya Bush was in charge. Oh no did he really do that? Only he isn't but somehow his stupidness is living on throughout congress and the idiots at the NRA.

[Loptr]

Fine sentiment, although a bit late. There are over 300,000,000 weapons in the US today. The gate has been open a long time. Seems a bit rhetorical to be closing it at this point.

Then there is the multi-billion dollar light arms industry that would shut down, putting thousands out of work. Double-edged swords can cut both ways.

The irony is that all this noise from the left on strengthening gun regulations has done exactly what they feared. Every Tom, Dick and Harry are now stocking up on assault style weapons for fear they will be banned. What a bunch of numtpies.

[NeverSure]

Ok clever cloggs. Keep living in your semi automatic protected bubble and act like things are better this way. Say you go to the 7/11 tomorrow and someone happens to kill a loved one of yours. Will you not perhaps even think that if such weapons were not able to make it into civilians hands that might have not happened? Ponder that and whilst you do remember for a lot of people this happens every day thanks to your constitutional right to bear arms. Reading stories like these kind if reminds me of when Dubya Bush was in charge. Oh no did he really do that? Only he isn't but somehow his stupidness is living on throughout congress and the idiots at the NRA.

Over and over I've said it and either people don't read the thread, or they just don't get it.

If someone I love is killed by a drunk driver tomorrow I will be angry. I will want to hang that driver. I will want the law to lock him up and throw the key away. I will be broken hearted at the loss of a loved one.

But I won't give up my freedom to drive, along with everyone else's freedoms, to prevent another one.

Only criminals drive drunk or shoot innocent people. I want the criminals dealt with severely which they aren't. I want the known mentally ill locked up, which they aren't.

Freedom isn't free, and it comes with risks. I accept the risks. Statistics posted in this thread show that they aren't as bad as you must think.

Edited April 25, 2013 by NeverSure

[Scott]

A large number of off-topic posts and replies have been deleted. Continued off-topic, baiting and you will receive a suspension.

The thread is not about Muslims in the UK or guns in Australia or the war in someplace called "Irag".

Stay on topic.

[NeverSure]

'Assault Rifle' is a term exploited by the Liberal / Leftist gun grabbers. Gun haters portray an 'Assault Rifle' as a Fully Automatic firing rifle - one trigger pull gives a fire hose of bullets. This big lie is used to inflame the public, In truth, an assault rife is a Semi-Automatic rifle - multiple trigger pulls to fire multiple bullets - no different than a semi-automatic pistol. Assault rifles also have a pistol grip stock extension, a flash suppressor and a few other treatments - otherwise they are the same as other rifles without these things that are not called Assault Rifles.

Propaganda is propagana and the gun haters are good at spreading disinformation, misinformation and propaganda. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that under the 2nd. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Individual Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms... not just as defined as a militia. The thrust of the Gun Haters is not to just expand background checks it is to bring about full registration then Confiscation. Thus the reason gun rights advocates fight tooth and nail to stop any more regulation of any kind... bottom line. The gun haters can't change the Constitution to eliminate gun ownership (they don't have the votes or support to do that and never will) so they want to back door eliminating the citizens rights under the 2nd. Admendment. Thus obama and the gun haters are furious.

The thrust of the Gun Haters is not to just expand background checks it is to bring about full registration then Confiscation.

That's misinformation. The use of the term 'gun haters' is emotive twaddle. Many gun owners in the US, for all you know, may favour stricter gun laws. No-one has suggested that confiscation other than the NRA and it's supporters.

If assault rifles are ordinary guns with bits and bobs added to them, why would anyone want to keep one other than at the gun club? Your argument that they are virtually the same as standard rifles gets close to suggesting that they should be banned too! But it's only you who, as far as I am aware, has mentioned the similarity.

"If assault rifles are ordinary guns with bits and bobs added to them, why would anyone want to keep one other than at the gun club?"

One more time. Our guns are primarily to defend ourselves and others from criminals and from our own government. What good would the gun do for that if it was at the gun club? You can't seem to get it why we have the guns, or why so many people want to have them.

You insist on staying off in your own world, with your own thoughts, when you don't understand the culture or the reason.

Most Americans have no problem understanding why the Senate didn't pass this law. There is no rioting or protesting in the streets about it. There is almost no uproar about it except from a fringe element, and from foreigners who it doesn't affect.

You seem to lack the knowledge about what really happened.

You don't have to agree with it, but please at least grasp the concept. Your arguments, rather than being factual, are emotional.

Edited April 25, 2013 by NeverSure

[Scott]

A baiting post has been deleted. If you continue to use inflammatory references to posters' political views, or to the constitution or other groups, your post will be deleted.

Some of you are obviously done posting as you have nothing new to say and are simply making remarks about other posters.

[Morden]

'Assault Rifle' is a term exploited by the Liberal / Leftist gun grabbers. Gun haters portray an 'Assault Rifle' as a Fully Automatic firing rifle - one trigger pull gives a fire hose of bullets. This big lie is used to inflame the public, In truth, an assault rife is a Semi-Automatic rifle - multiple trigger pulls to fire multiple bullets - no different than a semi-automatic pistol. Assault rifles also have a pistol grip stock extension, a flash suppressor and a few other treatments - otherwise they are the same as other rifles without these things that are not called Assault Rifles.

Propaganda is propagana and the gun haters are good at spreading disinformation, misinformation and propaganda. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that under the 2nd. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Individual Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms... not just as defined as a militia. The thrust of the Gun Haters is not to just expand background checks it is to bring about full registration then Confiscation. Thus the reason gun rights advocates fight tooth and nail to stop any more regulation of any kind... bottom line. The gun haters can't change the Constitution to eliminate gun ownership (they don't have the votes or support to do that and never will) so they want to back door eliminating the citizens rights under the 2nd. Admendment. Thus obama and the gun haters are furious.

The thrust of the Gun Haters is not to just expand background checks it is to bring about full registration then Confiscation.

That's misinformation. The use of the term 'gun haters' is emotive twaddle. Many gun owners in the US, for all you know, may favour stricter gun laws. No-one has suggested that confiscation other than the NRA and it's supporters.

If assault rifles are ordinary guns with bits and bobs added to them, why would anyone want to keep one other than at the gun club? Your argument that they are virtually the same as standard rifles gets close to suggesting that they should be banned too! But it's only you who, as far as I am aware, has mentioned the similarity.

"If assault rifles are ordinary guns with bits and bobs added to them, why would anyone want to keep one other than at the gun club?"

One more time. Our guns are primarily to defend ourselves and others from criminals and from our own government. What good would the gun do for that if it was at the gun club? You can't seem to get it why we have the guns, or why so many people want to have them.

You insist on staying off in your own world, with your own thoughts, when you don't understand the culture or the reason.

Most Americans have no problem understanding why the Senate didn't pass this law. There is no rioting or protesting in the streets about it. There is almost no uproar about it except from a fringe element, and from foreigners who it doesn't affect.

You seem to lack the knowledge about what really happened.

You don't have to agree with it, but please at least grasp the concept. Your arguments, rather than being factual, are emotional.

What really happened was that kids in school were killed by a guy who carried an AR15 and many people felt that such a gun had no place in civilised society. Politicians voted down the draft, showing that most had no inkling of how the decline in the US is affecting normal life.

If you want to defend yourself, do as I do and keep a hand gun at home.

[Ulysses G.]

A handgun is very difficult to aim at a criminal more than a few feet away. It is better than nothing, but not very good protection for someone who is not an expert marksman.

[JDGRUEN]

My point was not about the type of gun! Jeez.

Again, to filter out the gun nerd noise:

Do deranged felons have a constitutional right to buy a machine gun out of a vending machine at 3 in the morning? Is that what Scalia ruled? Of course not! Which means, OBVIOUSLY, that a huge range of REGULATIONS and limitations are 100 percent constitutional.

The point is most any kind of regulatory law about guns is totally constitutional, even with Scalia's radical right wing ruling, if it falls short of confiscating all guns from law abiding citizens, which nobody politically sane is trying to do.

Illegal guns in the hands of crims? Fine. Step up enforcement aggressively for having the guns illegally.

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/

Background checks are a relatively new priority for Obama’s Justice Department, which only prosecuted 44 of the 48,000 felons and fugitives that submitted background checks to purchase a firearm (and were denied because of the functioning system) in 2012. When the NRA pointed out this out to Biden, the Vice President explained that they “simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form”.

[DocN]

Europeans and Americans have very different views on guns in society.

Americans believe firearms are necessary to protect oneself against any agressor. Americans don't care to become a victim.

How would you protect yourself if the next Charles Manson and gang come to your home? If you don't have superior firepower you will be overtaken, or worse.

What group was unharmed during the L.A. riots ? It was those Koreans in Koreatown. They patrolled the tops of the buildings with AK-47s and no riot spread to their neighborhood because everyone knew they were armed to the hilt.

Americans cannot agree with sitting and waiting to be shot by someone who takes over a building or tries to enter your home. Americans will take up arms and fight.

If more responsible adults had a concealed weapon permit we would stop more assauts before they occur.

A criminal does not need a gun to kill. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. And there will always be outlaws.

Lets's see: I wasn't there, when the Manson- gang went on a killing spree...but I think it is a save guess, it didn't happen like this:

"Good evening, ma'am...my name is Charles Manson and this is my gang. Would you mind us, coming inside have some alcohol and drugs and sex and little satan- worshipping...and after that...may we kill you?" And Sharon Tate went to look for here gun, but unfortunately she forgot to buy one earlier...and the rest is history!

And this is where the whole "waht would you do, if you wake up at night and there is a killer in your house"- thing blows up!

"Dear Mr. Killer /Rapist/ black drug-gang ...can you please wait until I get my gun, load it and take aim at you?"

When I sleep, my gun in under my pillow, it is loaded and it is cocked and locked.

When I am out and about, my gun is in my belly pouch, it is loaded and it is cocked and locked.

There is no point in owning a gun, for self-defence, if it isn't loaded and within your reach.

Let's just hope, your judgement is always good, no one ever comes to your house, when you are drowsy from sleeping or having a drink...otherwise, we may have a good chance to read about you in this very forum!

[NeverSure]

'Assault Rifle' is a term exploited by the Liberal / Leftist gun grabbers. Gun haters portray an 'Assault Rifle' as a Fully Automatic firing rifle - one trigger pull gives a fire hose of bullets. This big lie is used to inflame the public, In truth, an assault rife is a Semi-Automatic rifle - multiple trigger pulls to fire multiple bullets - no different than a semi-automatic pistol. Assault rifles also have a pistol grip stock extension, a flash suppressor and a few other treatments - otherwise they are the same as other rifles without these things that are not called Assault Rifles.

Propaganda is propagana and the gun haters are good at spreading disinformation, misinformation and propaganda. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that under the 2nd. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Individual Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms... not just as defined as a militia. The thrust of the Gun Haters is not to just expand background checks it is to bring about full registration then Confiscation. Thus the reason gun rights advocates fight tooth and nail to stop any more regulation of any kind... bottom line. The gun haters can't change the Constitution to eliminate gun ownership (they don't have the votes or support to do that and never will) so they want to back door eliminating the citizens rights under the 2nd. Admendment. Thus obama and the gun haters are furious.

The thrust of the Gun Haters is not to just expand background checks it is to bring about full registration then Confiscation.

That's misinformation. The use of the term 'gun haters' is emotive twaddle. Many gun owners in the US, for all you know, may favour stricter gun laws. No-one has suggested that confiscation other than the NRA and it's supporters.

If assault rifles are ordinary guns with bits and bobs added to them, why would anyone want to keep one other than at the gun club? Your argument that they are virtually the same as standard rifles gets close to suggesting that they should be banned too! But it's only you who, as far as I am aware, has mentioned the similarity.

"If assault rifles are ordinary guns with bits and bobs added to them, why would anyone want to keep one other than at the gun club?"

One more time. Our guns are primarily to defend ourselves and others from criminals and from our own government. What good would the gun do for that if it was at the gun club? You can't seem to get it why we have the guns, or why so many people want to have them.

You insist on staying off in your own world, with your own thoughts, when you don't understand the culture or the reason.

Most Americans have no problem understanding why the Senate didn't pass this law. There is no rioting or protesting in the streets about it. There is almost no uproar about it except from a fringe element, and from foreigners who it doesn't affect.

You seem to lack the knowledge about what really happened.

You don't have to agree with it, but please at least grasp the concept. Your arguments, rather than being factual, are emotional.

What really happened was that kids in school were killed by a guy who carried an AR15 and many people felt that such a gun had no place in civilised society. Politicians voted down the draft, showing that most had no inkling of how the decline in the US is affecting normal life.

If you want to defend yourself, do as I do and keep a hand gun at home.

With very few exceptions, handguns are wimpy compared to any center fire rifle. There are some sayings about that.

Firearms trainer Clint Smith’s axiom: “The only purpose for a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should have never laid down.”

Also, a handgun is for an expert who can operate through his adrenaline. It is very, very hard for most people to be accurate with a handgun. Now a rifle or shotgun, you can point instinctively just looking down the barrel, and it is more steady.

The reason police and civilians carry handguns is for convenience. You can't really go about your day carrying a rifle, so the pistol is the best you can do and is much better than nothing.

[NeverSure]

When I sleep, my gun in under my pillow, it is loaded and it is cocked and locked.

When I am out and about, my gun is in my belly pouch, it is loaded and it is cocked and locked.

There is no point in owning a gun, for self-defence, if it isn't loaded and within your reach.

Let's just hope, your judgement is always good, no one ever comes to your house, when you are drowsy from sleeping or having a drink...otherwise, we may have a good chance to read about you in this very forum!

Well, I have a backup alarm and dogs to wake me. I have lights that come on inside the house and flood everything but my bedroom, so I stay in the dark and hard to see by someone who's suddenly flooded with light.

Speaking of judgment, it falls to the idiot that came into my house without my permission or knowledge. If you read about me in this forum, it will be about how I either ran the guy off, or used a weapon to defend myself.

I have zero concern for anyone who surprises me, my dogs, or my alarm or my lights in my house and is dumb enough to keep coming. That has to be someone pretty high on something.

[JDGRUEN]

Okay - for all you folks anywhere in the world who are interested in a REAL understanding of the 2nd, Amendment - Right to Bear Arms debate and fiasco in the USA... then below is a chance for you to read an account from an American - who is a professed 'leftist' - abortion supporter, Occupy Wall Street participant and more ,,, - she also happens to be a gun owner.. In the article below on her blog she points out ALL the mistakes the liberals and leftists made during the run up to the recent showdown in the U.S. Senate on Gun Control ... don't expect the usual ...

Oh - and if you're going to read it - read it closely ...

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/

[NeverSure]

Okay - for all you folks anywhere in the world who are interested in a REAL understanding of the 2nd, Amendment - Right to Bear Arms debate and fiasco in the USA... then below is a chance for you to read an account from an American - who is a professed 'leftist' - abortion supporter, Occupy Wall Street participant and more ,,, - she also happens to be a gun owner.. In the article below on her blog she points out ALL the mistakes the liberals and leftists made during the run up to the recent showdown in the U.S. Senate on Gun Control ... don't expect the usual ...

Oh - and if you're going to read it - read it closely ...

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/

Thanks.

I particularly liked these truths, emphasis mine:

"Fortunately for children, the National Safety Council says that they are less likely to be accidentally killed by any firearm than most other causes of death. Children ages 0-19 (which technically includes two years of life that aren’t childhood) are about 8 times more likely to drown or be poisoned, 4 times as likely to be killed by smoke or fire and almost 50 times more likely to be killed in a car accident.

No wonder the Left’s alarmist warnings had no effect on the people of Newtown, (Location of Sandy Hook School shootings) who voted for the NRA’s suggestion to put armed guards in schools."

And:

"Fortunately for America, the FBI says that citizens of all ages are literally more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed with a rifle of any kind – not just “assault” rifles. In fact, you are more than twice as likely to be killed by hands and feet than rifles of any kind, and about 5 times more likely to be killed by a knife."

And:

"The Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice noted in a recent internal memo that the effectiveness of universal background checks would “require gun registration”. (It also went on to note that “gun buybacks are ineffective”, that a high-capacity magazine ban wouldn’t have any discernible effect, that “assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime”, and that even a complete elimination of all “assault” weapons “would not have a large impact on gun homicides”.)

When your own Department of Justice thinks your ideas are bad ones, it’s time to move on."

Edited April 26, 2013 by NeverSure

[Morden]

neversure:

With very few exceptions, handguns are wimpy compared to any center fire rifle. There are some sayings about that.

Firearms trainer Clint Smith’s axiom: “The only purpose for a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should have never laid down.”

Also, a handgun is for an expert who can operate through his adrenaline. It is very, very hard for most people to be accurate with a handgun. Now a rifle or shotgun, you can point instinctively just looking down the barrel, and it is more steady.

The reason police and civilians carry handguns is for convenience. You can't really go about your day carrying a rifle, so the pistol is the best you can do and is much better than nothing.

I'm satisfied that my .38 would do the job where I want it to, in the home. I'm accurate with it too, as I said earlier. A shotgun or rifle may be bought some time for dogs. I don't expect to have to use a gun away from home and feel sympathy for those who live in an environment where they think that might happen to them.

[Credo]

I take great offense at the snide remarks made about people are the left. I am pretty far to the left as are most of my family and a lot of my friends. I don't own a gun and never kept one in the house (except for a short period of time). Most of my family and friends are gun owners.

Reasonable controls on ownership are fine with me, but like most of the far right, I am skeptical (as are a lot of other left leaning people) about giving up too much of our rights.