if you have a ship in American waters you can arm that as well. why do you think they put ARMS in the constitution instead of Guns!? and the other lie involves Well regulated confused with Government regulated. Google it.
First we must bring the house up to a constitutional level, then we can have a national conversation about The right to bare arms. We can even vote on an amendment on them as well

This is a poorly written opinion piece.

Locking this would be like locking every thread about mass shootings because its about guns.

feels compelled to acknowledge its failed prohibition strategy, and to propose the look of moderation. Okay, but this ain't big news. News about itself, maybe, but not of events around us.

This is also in the "Gungeon" where most of the pro-2A posters at least try to follow the TOS in GD. But special dispensations, and all.

'I consider (guns) a threat to national security.' - President Andrew Shepherd from 'The American President.'

In each election, a huge number of people I know vote Republican because "the Dems are going to take our guns away".

When I argue that no one needs an AK, they usually agree. But the general view is that your guns are safe with a Repugnant President. And, so many are willing to vote on that one tenet.

Each sees any regulation whatsoever as chipping away at their particular right.

That is a fucked up comparison.

Virtually all of the rampage killers and around 70% of killers perpetrating singular gun homicides have disqualifying histories.

Currently, there's a consensus that the following exception applies:

"Open discussion of guns is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia."

Eventually, there will be a consensus that the "open discussion" period has expired, and locking will resume...

chip away at overall abortion rights?

Died the day di-fi uttered the phrase "if I had the power, I would make every American turn in their guns", or something like that.

I'd be more than happy to acquiesce to this deal that the author is suggesting:

-Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds.
-Adopt rules that make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms.
-Outlaw the public display of weapons.
-Allow the concealed carry of guns using the “shall issue” standard.
-Stop trying to ban scary-looking add-ons that primarily protect the shooter, but don’t make the gun more dangerous to others.
-Forget attacks on the “armor-piercing bullets.”
-Abandon efforts to outlaw “assault weapons”—a politically loaded phrase with a mishmash of meanings that pretty much amount to nothing.

Let you have them while you're alive, but ban the inheritance of guns.

I appreciate it when you folks come around and prove, without a doubt, why you cannot be negotiated with.

They'll be free to go buy their own if they want - or to do something better with that money.

In short, you want to confiscate guns, but instead of doing it in one fell swoop you would be ok with doing it over time. No thanks.

So, can the potential heirs actually get an opportunity to purchase THOSE specific guns back (assuring they go through the background check, which I presume fills your requirement) with the 'fair value' they were offered?

If you're worried about 'historical value', you obviously aren't going to be firing the gun.

I have a savage 1889 (model denotes year of manufacture), I still use it.

Why do we need to destroy these guns again?

Too many "progressives" are all or nothing gun control fanatics. They will never rest until everything that can fire a projectile is banned and confiscated.

This is why the NRA, to their detriment, seems so extreme. They've tried to offer compromises in the past and this is the kind of response they've gotten.

So, it was an interesting proposal from a person trying to make a reasonable proposition to unreasonable people on both extremes. No dice for them.

Hell, it's not like states even provide plates to operate...oh wait!

"Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds"

Will be difficult to separate from

"Stop trying to ban scary looking add-on that primarily protect the shooter, but do not make the gun more dangerous to others"

It protects the shooter from being blinded by the fireball of hot gasses at the end of he barrel. It doesn't actually conceal the shooter really, so it's not more dangerous to other than a gun without it.

How can you take anything in the article seriously when the cover is just plain stupid.


Another snoozeweek fail.

that it's not hard to buy an AK47 as the latest alleged murderer did with ease.

What society allows citizens access to weapons of war?

But the non-military semi-automatic rifle that is patterned a fictions similar it does not have fully automatic capability as the military version. You can buy the full auto version for 10's of thousands of dollars and federal background checks plus a tax stamp from the ATF.

A free one.

Clearly you're of the view that yours is the only free society on earth - there is nothing free about the freedom to slaughter innocent people because of the power of a gun lobby.

My bad

How'd that work out for them?

They seem to understand that controls on ownership (e.g. licensing, background checks, reasonable "good cause", so forth) are a hell of a lot more effective than squabbling over petty details like the shape of the grip, adjustability of the stock, or whether or not there's a flash hider. For God's sake, the Germans love their "weapons of war" so much they make them themselves, "to the very highest Teutonic quality standards".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#Legal_status_of_civilian_ownership

That's an updating of one of the pro-gun militants' favorite sayings. No surprise that the Newsweek cover story has them roiled up.

anything else except humans. So I'd say its an accessory.

"Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez was carrying 30-round magazines when he opened fire, according to a source briefed by law enforcement. Abdulazeez kept police at bay for some time with the amount of ammunition he had, according to the source.

The shooting suspect was armed with an AK-47 style weapon? at the time of the attack according to two law enforcement officials briefed on the investigation."

30-rounds is what is most practical, ergo --

Especially to and from the stand however, Most of my 30's only see duty when the kids and I go to the range for family fun time.

I really like 20's the best; not too long for shooting off bipods yet still providing enough rounds for hunting purposes. Of course it's only 30's for my home defense firearm.

I ask a guy a question and all I get is silence. If I was still a dating girl I'd be getting really self-conscious.

a statement has been poorly constructed and sift for subtexts.

dead little kids in their schools, dead, dead, dead but they are free to buy any gun of their choice.

So that's their next goal: over-the-counter machine guns. And no, I'm not exaggerating or making that up---they've got the 1934 federal gun law in their crosshairs, wailing that it desecrates their sacred 2nd Amendment rights.....

This is madness. You know yesterday was special in a strange way:
Roof arraigned; Holmes verdicts in and at the same time there was another live mass slaughter - this time of Marines.

You know, we're just short a year of the 50th anniversary of the Charles Whitman shootings (August 1, 1966). I lived in Austin at the time, and one of many things I remember about that horror show is how profoundly it affected the whole country. All the news magazines had it as a cover story, and the TV networks had all sorts of news and analysis of the incident---because back then, it was genuine news. And now? Mass shootings are so common that they barely survive a single news cycle. Such are the times we live in. It won't always be this way; one of these days, people will look back on our era and wonder how such a small portion of the populace could provide cover for so much mayhem and destruction, all in the name of a right they deemed more important than the lives of so many. What a tragedy our gun policies are.

Damn!!

You are so right - mass shootings are now the norm - that's very troubling.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness instead of the right to be dead because anyone else's right to kill you is the fucking National priority. So effed up.

The vast majority of murders in Jamaica (a murder center of the world) are gun related and we don't make a single one of them. We are forced to provide resources to prevent illegal drugs from entering the US but no one protects us from US guns.

And the whole wild west mentality that supports it. That's why our law enforcement has gone into full combat mode against the citizenry.

Love ya, Malaise. You are one of the good ones. You get it.

You are one of the good ones.

I hate all guns. We don't even allow friends to enter our home with legal weapons although very few of our friends or family own weapons.

The more citizens acquire war weapons, the more the police join the full combat mode. It is madness.

Look up tobacco related deaths and firearms related deaths

These individuals are a 'militia'?

I hurt my brachial plexus and I can't even bear my own arm. Seriously.

To individual ownership for the fearful. None of them seem to be organized into any actual militia groups until you get to those survivalist skinheads in armed encampments protecting their wimins and two year food supply. Jackbooted thugs.

According to FBI statistics 69% of all murders are done with pistols. In fact knives and clubs EACH kill more people then rifles AND shotguns combined (and that includes AK-47 and AR-15/M16 clones). Thus if someone wants such a weapon, the chances of it being used illegally is way less then someone using a baseball bat.

As to this type of "Militia" Hamilton in the Federalist Papers advocated that the reserve militia (a term he did NOT use, but is the present name for such unorganized parts of the Militia) be called up no more then once a year to see if they have the necessary equipment and then sent home. The purpose of the call up is to make sure the reserve militia is equipped if and when it is called up to duty. In the Militia Act of 1792, this concept was REJECTED in favor of the States during similar call up of its Militia on a monthly basis, something that fell out of favor after about 1820 when the Native American Threat all but disappeared from most of the US.

When the present Militia act was passed in 1905 (It has been changed several times since 1905 for example to include women in the National Guard), it was decided that the reserve militia would only be used in emergency situations and thus best formed up to face such emergencies. The last time the reserve militia showed up was during the massive flooding of the upper Mississippi in the 1990s. They were called "Volunteers" and both the Federal Government and State Government refused to call them Militia (more to avoid having to pay for any medical injuries then anything else), but it was the people as a whole going to the levees building them up to reduce the extent of the flooding.

Now, back to weapons. Pistols are the problems NOT Rifles. We could abolish all regulations on rifles, and that will have no affect on the crime rate. On the other hand, regulation of pistols in another thing all together, These are the weapons of choice when it comes to crimes including mass murder. The Article makes a good argument to banning large capacity magazine (Something I agree with when it comes to pistols, but I believe violates the Second amendment when it comes to rifles) but then points out it is large capacity pistols that are the problem NOT rifles (Rifle with large capacity have been used in mass murders, but no where near the level of pistols and to a lesser degree then bombs).

Thus these people having rifles fit only for combat has no affect on crime rates or murder rates. These people are insane in spending they money on such weapons, but such insanity is perfectly legal in the US and does NOT lead to any social or criminal problems.

Remember, till the 1960s, only 10% of all firearms being purchased were pistols, pistols sales are now 40% of all firearms sales. This massive increase in fire power in the form of pistols makes no sense, except if you remember people will embrace what they are exposed to (Pistols and hand grenades look much more effective on Movie and TV screens then they do in real life, thus that most people get their entertainment via such screens increases the demand for pistols). We need to regulate pistols, and I have long supported that anyone with a license to carry be required to carry only a revolver, for it restricts then to six shots AND if they concern in "Protection" six shots are sufficient AND given the nature of a Revolver, if a round does not fire, the revolver will go to the next round, in an automatic the weapons just jams, this is the primary reason police carried revolvers for decades in the US, till they started to watch to much TV and all wanted automatics.

Such a requirement will reduce the demand for Automatics to a level that most criminals will end up with revolvers not automatics. This will also reduce the numbers of mass murders by the simple fact that the pistol of choice would be incapacity of high rates of fire.

Too many Rambo movies I think.

And large numbers are exactly what would be needed to occupy a population that did not want to be occupied. Consider: Vietnam, the Cuban revolution, Iraq, Syria, Azerbaijan, etc.

there are many reasons to own guns, some better than others.

It will be a cement mixer. Just toss 'em in. We'll pour and smooth the highway to peace and tranquility.

Eom

So how, exactly, will providing the cops an exclusive monopoly on force empower the people?

the main reason the cops are so trigger happy is because there are soooo many guns out there. Fucking duh. We cannot limit the little boys' toys dontcha know.

That's a justification I had not heard before...

when the reality is through most of our history people have had parity in fire power or better with the military the whole time and only with the machine gun ban did security forces jump ahead of the public.

Get with the program.

• Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds. An overstated issue, but I don't care about it one way or another. Unless the author means magazine capacity limits, e.g. banning magazines > 10 rounds? That I'm not in favor of.
  
  
• Adopt rules that make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms. Needs specifics, but yes. Universal background checks would be a good thing.
  
  
• Outlaw the public display of weapons. Meaning a ban on open carry? I'm OK with that, provided the next item comes with it, there are exceptions for incidental exposure, and it doesn't apply to wilderness or rural areas.
  
  
• Allow the concealed carry of guns using the “shall issue” standard. Yes.
  
  
• Stop trying to ban scary-looking add-ons that primarily protect the shooter, but don’t make the gun more dangerous to others. Yes.
  
  
• Forget attacks on the “armor-piercing bullets.” Yes.
  
  
• Abandon efforts to outlaw “assault weapons”—a politically loaded phrase with a mishmash of meanings that pretty much amount to nothing. Yes.

I'm tired of being awakened by planes, especially on weekends. So I think I'll go down to Walmart and pick up a surface-to-air missile.

Based on a Newspeek op ed rehashing old arguments heard for years, here in DU? Had drift down the line of posts to find something about the shooting of Marines, you know, to make the TOS legit.

...even when special dispensation gives you a third forum.