Two questions for gun control people

[seminolewind]

I can say "Thankyou, Florida", for letting me keep a gun to protect myself. Alone , at home , at night, without a gun, I don't have any chance.

I don't think banning assault rifle is going to make a difference. I'm sure any gun will do- rifle or not.

 

[MamaRoo]

I can say "Thankyou, Florida", for letting me keep a gun to protect myself. Alone , at home , at night, without a gun, I don't have any chance.

Sounds as if you have a constant need to use a gun to defend yourself at home. I'm curious how many times you've actually pulled a weapon on an intruder.

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote: You only have to need it once.

 

[Capvin]

I will ask then how exactly will you accomplish said endeavor? and not infringe upon my right? or do it by not reducing my right to a mere privelage? And how will the gun cops collect said weapons without infringing on the 4th and possible other amendments? I really would like to hear your plan.

Are you reading and listening to the news? It will be done by the various States the same as New York just did. The State legislatures are being flooded with restrictive gun bills and eventually the US Congress will be forced to pass some National regulations. You can scream and holler all you want about it being an infringement upon your rights when, in fact, it will be interpreted by the Supreme Court as a reasonable regulation of the 2nd amendment. Those who dont like it can choose to violate those laws or, like I have seen some here suggest, they can attempt a revolution. Can you not see that all of these arguments are the same ones used by bigots when the Courts ordered desegregation? They screamed, they fought, they even killed, but eventually troops were sent in and it was accomplished and there are still some people today who believe that the forced desegregation was an infringement upon their rights granted by the Constitution. No sane, thinking person believes that any longer. It is just the radical fringe elements. Don't compare your perceived "right" to carry and use any weapon you choose with the right of a human being to sit on a bus. You will sound like that radical fringe and I know that you are not.

 

[Capvin]

Sorry...double post

 

[thaiturkey]

The any-person-any-gun-any-place brigade persists in attempting to divert the discussion from the core subject which is the legality of rapid fire rifles and high capacity magazines. They are either very unsure of their case for such weapons remaining legal or a bit short on rational perception.

Here are some examples of their tactics:

1. The Second Amendment says I can own any weapon. Two women on Piers Morgan said that entitled them to own a tank. In fact, the Second Amendment refers only to the arming of a 'well regulated militia'. A few guys wandering around the forest or a shopping mall looking for bad guys does not constitute a well regulated militia.

Text of the 2nd Amendment

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.

2. People are murdered by killers with all manner of weapons, not just AR15s. Sure, but there is no suggestion that there is a proposal to ban all guns, knives and the like. That could be debated too because handguns tucked out of sight are responsible for many deaths. However, the focus, despite attempts to blur it, is on guns used to kill many people very quickly.

3. Next they will take away all our liberties and kill us. Poppycock not worthy of a juveniles thinking.

4. Spurious and irrelevant data about killings in other countries. That has nothing to do with the epidemic of massacres in the US. How can any rational person ignore those tragedies and argue for no change in the law?

5. If there had been a man with a gun on those planes on 9/11, he could have stopped what happened. Maybe and maybe not. But we are talking about AR15s and the like. No Air Marshall would carry such a weapon. It would be a handgun and there is no suggestion that they be banned.

6. People kill, not guns. Well, people with guns kill. The focus, again for those who have missed the point, is on rapid fire rifles and high capacity magazines.

7. Spouting detailed knowledge as if that gives greater say in the discussion. It's plain for all to see that too many people in the US are being killed by weapons that have no legitimate purpose in civilian hands. It's not rocket science.

8 We will be attacked by either the Chinese, Al Qaeda or our own government, therefore I must have rapid fire weapons and high capacity magazines. Well, chaps, if any of those groups wanted to attack you, they would not walk around with guns. They would blast you from the sky one way or another. Your weapons would be useless against them. Your enemy is within. It's the proliferation of mass killing guns.

9. NRA logic. As far as I can see, the purpose of the NRA is to lobby on behalf of gun manufacturers and dealers, not the personal freedom that they pretend to defend.

Someone wrote earlier that those who oppose change are becoming so laughable in their arguments that they are helping more reasonable people to prove their point. That is very true. Some statements are so extreme or illogical that I wonder whether the write is emotionally fit to own a gun.

It's simple. There's a problem because mass killings are unacceptable and becoming more frequent. The massacre of young children is especially abhorrent. The most dangerous weapon is the AR15 type with a high capacity magazine. No other hand held weapon can kill so many people so quickly. There is no good reason for anyone to own such weapons. Surely, there's no case for arguing that nothing needs to be done. I accept that there are other issues to be addressed and I see that some of them are.

 

[Capvin]

1. The Second Amendment says I can own any weapon. Two women on Piers Morgan said that entitled them to own a tank. In fact, the Second Amendment refers only to the arming of a 'well regulated militia'. A few guys wandering around the forest or a shopping mall looking for bad guys does not constitute a well regulated militia.

Text of the 2nd Amendment

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.

Your interpretation is not correct even though you correctly show the wording of the 2nd amendment. In the recent Supreme Court case of Heller vs. DC the Court in a 5 to 4 decision made it very clear that the right extends to individuals. That case has put to rest the "militia" argument. However, in that same case the Court did say that the 2nd amendment is not absolute and is subject (like all of the other amendments) to reasonable regulations.

 

[thaiturkey]

Your interpretation is not correct even though you correctly show the wording of the 2nd amendment. In the recent Supreme Court case of Heller vs. DC the Court in a 5 to 4 decision made it very clear that the right extends to individuals. That case has put to rest the "militia" argument. However, in that same case the Court did say that the 2nd amendment is not absolute and is subject (like all of the other amendments) to reasonable regulations.

Thanks for the correction.

If I understand that clearly, the Supreme Court can change the way the the 2A is interpreted. The narrow majority in favour of ignoring the 'militia' limitation could easily be reversed in a future case.

It's interesting that the same Court ruled that 2A could be subject to Regulations. I believe that it is already in that fully automatic weapons are banned. Therefore, the changing circumstances that have been witnessed recently may result in further Regulations.

If my interpretation is now correct, the Executive actions of the President and the agreement in Congress to his other proposals may be very possible without any legitimate claim that 2A is being violated.

 

[OldGuy43]

I guess I'm the only one to actually read The Dick Act of 1903 (aka The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775) ). It was initiated by the Secretary of War following the Spanish–American War of 1898, after the war demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and in the entire U.S. military.

The preamble reads:
Quote: (emphasis added)

Like it or not you are part of the militia.

 

[Capvin]

Old Guy, your interpretation of the Militia Act of 1902 is not really accurate. It has no bearing on any interpretation of the 2nd amendment and has never been interpreted as saying that everyone is part of the Militia (National Guard). You may be subject to becoming a part of the National Guard but the act did not conscript anyone. The main purpose of the act was to prohibit the States from using their National Guard as their personal army. The best example came during the 60's desegregation movement when the States (like Georgia) activated their National Guard to enforce segregation. Kennedy immediately used the Militia Act to put the National Guard under the command of the Federal Govt so it prevented the States from using it to attempt to enforce something that was contrary to the laws of the land.