It has been 3 days...has the NRA mass murder algorithm kicked into the next phase yet because we should soon be hearing from them about how the solution to the gun problem, if there is one of course, is....drumroll please...MORE GUNZ!?

Easier to ignore or excuse. Why not just use homicides because those numbers alone says something and would be taken seriously.

Of course suicide has been here probably since the beginning of earth.

Last edited Thu Aug 27, 2015, 01:26 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm sure the founders intended that every paranoid nutjob have easy access to semi-auto pistols and rifles when they wrote "well-regulated militia."

I can't speak to the "nut jobiness" of the paper printing.

Too bad for the nut jobbers.

Keep rolling with that, see how far it gets you.

But how do we go about it?

of your reasons, and work hard.




Can you handle that? Are you handling that?

answer to this.

How can you argue that you have a constitutional right to own certain weapons, when it's completely non-controversial that you cannot have a, say, functioning .50 caliber machine gun? I mean, clearly the government can regulate weaponry and simply disallow certain types.

What I mean is, how can you argue that you have a fundamental, non-negotiable right to guns, when it's so obviously and openly been negotiated to a certain point already?

...is that they constitute "ordnance" rather than "arms." That is, they are classified as being more like artillery than rifles and pistols in terms of destructive potential (and battlefield use, for that matter). I don't know how sound that rationale is, but I think it's the one in operation when more strictly regulating fully automatic firearms.

Personally, I think everybody should be allowed to have a shotgun and a bolt-action rifle for hunting and their play-army "militias" and THAT'S IT. I would support much stronger control of ownership of pistols and semi-auto rifles.

Personally, the only semi-automatic rifle I own is a "plinker," a little .22 for casual recreational target shooting (I don't hunt). My bolt-action rifles are vastly more dangerous, although in my hands, dangerous only to inanimate targets. I can't say I worry much about regulating rifles, given that they are used in only about 350-400 homicides annually (out of c. 13,000); handguns are the problem. Significantly reducing criminal access to handguns is where the most progress can be made in reducing homicide rates, IMO.

Handguns are a big problem.

there is no question that the 2A allows strict regulation of guns. The fight is over where the lines are drawn.

We tend to hear a lot of fairly cartoonish nonsense-- on a range of subjects, really.

Not for private ownership of 'arms.'

That's where they intentionally 'got it wrong' proving that it was a partisan corporate decision.

So are their decisions invalid only when you disagree with it, or all of them?

Or are you just being a hypocrite?

Who told you people can't?

if you have the money and are willing to endure the paperwork!

Although Marr's question about regulation of certain weapons and not others was obviously made in good faith, it does demonstrate how little most people understand about not just gun rights and related laws, but the nature and extent of all constitutional rights and the framework to impose limitations.

People own fully functional tanks, fighters, even jet fighters.

Of course, you're getting into the specialty collector market there, and I assume they'd be quite expensive. Still, I'm honestly surprised a weapon like that can be owned by a civilian with any amount of paperwork. That seems absurd to me.

Wouldn't additional regulations really be a solution looking for a problem?

Note also that the purchaser still has to pass a background check and meet other safety requirements.

Firearm crime, accidents and suicides are the province of handguns, with all rifles and shotgun representing a tiny fraction of deaths and injuries. However, handguns are also most ideally suited as defensive tools in the home or on one's person.

The design, function and technology must evolve to fit the government's narrow duties of forming a "well-regulated" militia for purposes of infantry duty. The Second recognizes the RKBArms so that this purpose is fulfilled. No other restriction is mentioned. It does not ban other weapons (full-auto is Not in fact banned), but it does not prevent regulation (which is substantial) of these weapons as they Were not viewed as infantry weapons. I can go through the hoops to get a real Assault Rifle (not the media-contrived "assault weapon&quot , or obtain a de-militarized Sabre fighter plane as Michael Dorn has.

The friction is what was suitable (well-regulated) for 1776, was not for the Civil War, was not for the Spanish American War or WW I, was not (eventually) for WW II or Korea, was/IS not for Vietnam and beyond. In reality, for the government to exercise its powers to call for the militia in Article 1, it is quite arguable that the weapons sold daily by the many thousands in big boxes -- including semi-auto AKs and AR 15s -- are not suitable for a well-regulated militia infantry today. As a political matter, I am okay with the Second Amendment protecting the RKBArms of the type comminly purchased now. But if you get down to it, in the future there may be a court action claiming unconstitutionality when this inconsistency you alluded to cropped up in the Firearms Act of 1934.

If you are interested, most constitutional scholars who have studied the Second contend it recognizes the individual RKBA; the so-called " militia clause" is the government's interest in that right, but not a conditioner of that right. IMO, the Second can be liberalized further (to include full-auto weapons), because of the government's specific need under Article 1, but it would be next to impossible to restrict the Second without repeal.

To my point of view the 2nd was an extension of the enlightenment view that people had a right to Life and the right to defend that life. Therefore the right to own tools suitable for such defense is particularly what the 2A is about protecting. That the government cannot arbitrarily without due process remove such tools from a persons possession/dwelling. Many state constitution have similar wording. Certainly the Colonists in Concord, MA thought that Gen Gage sought to prevent them from being able to defend themselves when he dispatched troops to seize their supplies of Powder and Ball. Likewise in the individual case if someone breaks into your residence you are not obliged to present them your throat for the slitting. But guaranteed the right to defend yourself.

why in this day and age even what or need a gun. And it sickins me that you can just go and buy one off a websight and have it brought to your house with all the ammo they want. I don't know how there aren't people just shooting in the streets

While you can indeed buy firearms online, you can't have your purchase delivered to your house unless you hold an FFL (federal firearms license required for gun dealers). You have to go to an FFL holder, undergo the required background check, fill out the transfer form, then take possession of the weapon. Here in Oregon, that requirement applies to private in-person purchases, too: we just instituted universal background checks.

As for the "why," in my case, I'm a small female who lives alone. I choose to keep firearms for defensive purposes.* I don't think that's the best choice for everyone (you have to be willing to devote time and effort to practice if you expect it to do you any good in a defensive situation), but I think it's a reasonable one for me. I shoot my defensive pistols very regularly, store them securely, and do my best to behave responsibly with them.

* As some here know, I'm also a competition shooter...but that's long-range rifle stuff. Those guns aren't very suitable for self-defense in most circumstances, and if I'm not at the range to practice or compete, they're stored unloaded in a gun safe.

Background checks don't do anything, you could snap at any moment and go on a killing spree. Lots of mass killings have been done with guns bought with a back ground check

Would I do so rather than allow them to kill me? Yep.

Sure, I could "snap at any moment and go on a killing spree." I could win the lottery, too. I could be struck by lightning. I could be trampled in a zebra stampede. Get taken out by a falling asteroid. Be eaten by a tiger. Win a Nobel Prize. See what I'm getting at? Long, long odds...

There are c. 350,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in the US, belonging to somewhere between 75 ad 90 million people. There are about 13,000 homicides committed per year, the majority by people who wouldn't pass a background check. Like I said: long, long odds.

"Like I said: long, long odds..."

Precious salt for the families of 31 people per day.

Though maybe Stalin was right... one death is a tragedy. Ten thousand deaths are merely a statistic. And long, long odds, at that.

...they're the best place to start.

Just put out totally false information and the correct Information is you can not just buy a weapon online and have it shipped to your house. It would be nice if some would just acknowledge they were wrong once and awhile.

One sided acts of aggression against practically defenseless opponents. None fought on American soil

Why not include the death toll we inflicted on them?

deaths in US involved wars since 1776 (includes Revolutionary War and Civil War and the two World Wars).

OK, somebody is bound to bring up the high death toll from motor vehicle accidents. "Do you want to ban cars? they will ask. No, I don't, but here are some things we're doing about car crashes that could be applied to firearms.

We insist that citizens who drive cars on the public roads get licenses and have insurance.

We insist that cars and trucks meet minimum safety standards.

We don't allow people to drive drunk.

People who carry concealed weapons generally have to be licensed. Those who carry openly generally don't. In "shall issue" states, a concealed carry permit may not even require safety training.

Firearms are not inspected before people are allowed to carry them in public, use them for hunting, etc. A lawsuit may be filed after the fact if a firearms malfunctions and injures someone. This is the same degree of consumer protection we provide for lawn mowers, kitchen appliances, etc.

In some states, being drunk while hunting is a crime. I guess some states also make it a crime to be drunk and carry a firearm. That's good. I wish it were universal.

I'm just thinking we ought to insist people who carry around firearms meet some minimum standards that apply everywhere.

firearms and otherwise. It's called the criminal code.

Moreover, proposals like safety training are generally constitutional, so long as they're not unduly burdensome and meant to dissuade firearm ownership rather than actually improve safety. In fact, many gun rights proponents and the NRA fully support remedial safety training and instruction. NRA certified and paid instructors are usually the people providing the training. If safety training proposals were not usually bundled with other restrictions and offered by committed gun controllers, such policies would most likely see wider implementation.

I don't understand you inspection demand. The government does not currently, no less routinely, inspect kitchen appliances or lawn movers, and to my knowledge, we do not have a problem with defectively designed or manufactured firearms injuring their owners or others.

in public, open or concealed. The only hassle is with those who hunt or use shooting ranges, which is why regulation of OC may not be required. (In Texas, OC of long guns, used mostly for hunting, has for some time been unregulated, but concealed-carry still requires a course and shooting test.) Unfortunately, the liberalization of the RKBA is riding such a high tide that a political one upmanship game is being played with no end in sight. Frankly, this is what happens when one side so completely vanquishes the other in a culture which devolves into wackamole.

his or her car in any other state.

Maybe Hasslecat is a closet supporter of concealed carry reciprocity?!?!

I would also note that it's impossible to insure against intentional criminal misuse of firearms, most homeowner's and renters insurance policies already cover firearm accidents, and separate policies and riders are extremely cheap and readily available for purchase (with the NRA as one of the largest vendors).

If firearms were suddenly regulated like motor vehicles, it would be greatest expansion of gun rights in American history! Gun controllers who use automobiles as a framework for firearm regulation should be very careful what they wish for.

I am in favor of an expansion of gun rights, as long as there are parallel responsibilities. I think we should establish a national standard for things such as concealed carry, enforce it, and make it reciprocal between states. That's right. If you qualified for a CC permit in Colorado, you could carry in New York, the Sullivan Law notwithstanding. The only thing is, some people would not meet the minimum standards for CC, or for owning certain types of weapons, and the NRA would howl like banshees. It's a two way street sort of thing.

by the gun rights community, and your proposal certainly has merit and would, in a more compromising and trusting world, be a great area for discussion and compromise.

As with most legislation, the devil is in the details. What would those "minimum standards" entail? Areas like basic knowledge and training or criminal background checks would find wide support, while ideas like demonstration of "need" would be nonstarters.

I would also note that the standards for ownership, such as that needed for the defense of one's home or to hunt or engage in sport, and the right to transport such firearms, should be decidedly lower under your rationale that the ability to carry concealed.

1) Using a car on the public ways is a "privilege," not a Constitutional right. Any restriction, regulation, cost imposed on a Right will come under sharp and effective scrutiny from the courts. SEE: poll tax, literacy tests, etc. under Jim (large, raucous black bird) era, and within some localities in our time.

2) To the degree a firearm fails to function as intended, consumers have the right to sue for damages as with other products. In the U.S., proofing of firearms is done privately, and that system has served well. Some arms manufacturers have made defective components; currently, Remington is paying for damages for and doing a major recall of its Model 700 rifle for defective safety/trigger groups. Like cars are being recalled for ignition switch interlocks and air bag defects, and paying damages.

3) It is illegal to shoot while drunk in all situations I can think of.

1. Are Police going to keep their guns ?

2. How is any measure going to address the issues of illegal firearms already flooding poor neighborhoods ?

The powers that be learned a long time ago that it is safer to have the rabble kill each other, so make it easy. Which is why the NRA is so powerful and there is a gun for every man, woman and child in America.

If there wasn't so much opportunity for unpoliticized killing, the 1 percent would have been exterminated long ago. So, they encourage us to kill each other. So we do but never understand why.

Self-inflicted deaths don't seem to bother umurrikins.