I am a firm supporter of arming one self for protection, but unless you're fighting in a war zone, there's no reason to be carrying an AR-15.

There's no reason to be carrying a weapon at all, unless you are military or police, or are responsible for dealing with large amounts of cash, or transporting items of great value on a regular basis.

In the United States in 2013 Deadly weapons (guns) were responsible for 84,000 injuries, 33,169 deaths.

Law enforcement reported 742 justifiable homicides in 2013. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 461 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 281 people during the commission of crimes. (See Expanded Homicide Data Tables 14 and 15.)

So 33,169 people were killed, and another 84,000 people injured, to protect 281 people. This is the definition of insanity.

In my personal opinion, if you feel you constantly need to be armed to protect yourself, you need a psychologist not a deadly weapon.

There's no reason to learn algebra, unless you're going to go on to learn and use calculus.

There. Now perhaps 10% of the high school body will need to be involved in any math beyond fractions.

There's no reason to learn to play an instrument or sing, unless you're going to be professional--and even then, many professional musicians have no formal training.

Bam. No need to have more than some training in music in schools.

Except there are other reasons to learn algebra or music. My first statement, "there's no reason to learn algebra (music) unless ..." is invalid. It's an assertion that is assumed to be true without proof or evidence, in hopes that nobody will disagree with the linguistic manipulation involved. It's a time honored advertising practice. Lakoff has taken it over as some sort of virtuous population-manipulating technique that he's called "framing." It's bad when they do it, it's good when we do it.

Similarly, "there's no reason to be carrying a weapon at all, unless ..." is a flawed premise. My brother hauls a fair arsenal with him every Sunday to the range. He's a master target shooter, won state championship a few years and goes to regional and national championships. And, yes, he has an AK-15. It's his fun practice.

I even had a roommate who'd lug weapons with him on a routine basis in his car. He was a salesman, often went to neighboring towns and bergs, and during hunting season he'd carry guns in his trunk. He seldom had to go on hunting trips becaused he'd bag his deer on the way home from work. He'd do the same thing with shotguns during bird-hunting season and with fishing poles during salmon or trout seasons.

Of course, there were hunting trips if he didn't bag a deer or his birds, and friends would go on hunting trips, too. Day trips and weekends. And, yes, most of the time they'd have semi-automatics. More convenient. And a more secure kill.

Especially since this was Oregon and one of the items in the news fairly regularly was when some pot growers would hack out a spot in the forest for raising their harvest. A hunter or hiker or camper would run across it and that would end badly. So the state warned hunters and hikers to stay on the path, with a more subdued warning to stay alert and if you're in certain parts of the forest to be armed. Just in case.

A different roommate carried a gun because he was a bit paranoid. Had a CWP. He drove an armored truck. He often biked to work. He figured there was an elevated risk of his being apprehended by thieves, either going to work or after entering security codes at work. Or, perhaps, at home. So he had a decent arsenal. He was especially antsy after an armored truck robbery was reported in the news. Yes, he was a bit paranoid, but in some ways it was merited.

I never suggested there was no reason to own a gun, I said there was problems with people who feel they need to carry them at all times to protect themselves. You picked one point and ignored the read of my post.

So you blatantly dismissed and attempted to justify the death and maiming of millions of people.

Since the Vietnam War, about 67,000 Americans have died in combat. In that same time frame, about 1.5 million have died in the US after being shot by a gun.

but not in an area that people normally hiked or even hunted.

Pot growers find very reclusive places for the big grows.

I just spent some time looking for links to your statement that in Oregon people were warned to be armed if going into the forest to hike or camp. I can't find a single story like that. I can't find a single story about citizens coming across a grow and things "going badly".

I think you are confusing reality with the kinds of things you can find on gun humper sites. I dd find a gun support site that advocated taking a gun with you into the forest, but nothing from the Sheriff's office, the Forest Service, or local police, and nothing in any news outlet, except for one story on OregonLive about DEA or law enforcement looking for grows, invading and dealing with armed grow tenders.

I'm calling bullshit on your story unless you can back it up with some news links.

Oh, and a little or a lot of math never killed anybody, so I think you've made your agenda here pretty clear. Don't take my guns away.

Nobody needs a semi-automatic like an AK to hunt with, if they do, they are a terrible hunter. For birds they are worthless. for deer, it only takes a single shot. Yeah, I'm a hunter and i use a single shot 22 that I got for Christmas when I was 10 to squirrel hunt with.

Which actually makes your last paragraph highly relevant. We don't treat mental health care like other types of health care in this country, and one issue likely informs, at least partially, the other.

Makes no difference they died due to the easy availability of guns in this country. Might they have found another way to kill themselves, maybe, maybe not.

Meaning, they are more likely to be successful than other means.

Suicide is a complex issue, and how you feel about a person's right to end themselves will color how you feel about that ~30-40% (depending on year, the number fluctuates). Just pointing out that only something around 60% of that total you listed is one person attacking another person.

But I agree strongly with your main point: our national neglect of mental healthcare and the continued stigmatization of seeking help for mental illness play a big damn part in these spree killings. How many times have we read "co-workers mentioned so-and-so's angry outbursts" and suchlike?

The only successful defensive gun use is when the assailant dies?

Many states, like my own, will make your life a living hell if you use a gun in self-defense, even if it's completely justified. You will be arrested and thrown in jail and charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon. You will eventually be found not guilty, but meanwhile your life will be destroyed.

I know if someone wad threatening to bash my brains in with a sledgehammer, and I had to brandish a gun to get them to back off, the very last thing I would do is report it to the police.

the bad guy in the story and there's no way to verify this if the police are not involved:

These road rage jackholes obviously thought they were in the right... the second guy was charged and had his toys taken away. Not sure about the first one.

But if the police were not involved, they OBVIOUSLY would say they did everything right. That's the problem with self reporting these incidents. Who is going to say "I pulled a gun and I was wrong?" lol....

And again I'd like to know how often people come after you with a sledgehammer.

The M16 and M4 are the actual military models, and they haven't been available for sale to the public at any price since 1986.

So, if you think they belong in a war zone, but no one carries them in actual war zones, I'm not sure where the 9 million of them in US circulation should be.

Still waiting for an expression of concern from our Repuke governor, Rick Scott.

Engaging on issues with depth, clarity, sound reasoning

and no fear. The demeanor is Thatcheresque in my opinion.

She was a disaster for working people.

What are you invoking and advocating for exactly?

I hope you're not holding your breath.

That's the point I've been trying to make here.

Hill yes!

Total ban is Republican manna from heaven. How about extensive background checks that would have stopped him from buying firearms legally which was rejected by the NRA and their Republican sycophants. American's can own fully automatic machine guns with special Federal license why not something similar with high powered semi automatics described as assault guns.

I do not see that the public needs these weapons but why not as a start do intense background checks? Hit legislators who would not even allow background checks.

who becomes president.
No, for that to happen there would have to be a massive change across the entire country in regards to peoples opinion on gun ownership followed by a willingness of the people to amend the constitution and the odds of those two things are so low as to be virtually nonexistent.

To call the Republicans out on not passing legislation that bars those on the terror watch list from having access to guns.

Specifically, repeal the 1986 GOPA
Extend the 1934 NFA to include all semi-automatics.
Lower the tax stamp from 200$ to 35$, or thereabouts, as that's what it costs for the background check.


Since 1934, only 2 crimes have been committed with lawfully owned fully-automatic weapons (one by a police officer), and that simple bar to entry of a real background check and registration is a major contributor to that.

The NFA registry is well-tested against the 2nd amendment. Legal. Perfectly fine.

You sell these to someone who should not have them your ass should be on the line.

If no semi-auto firearms are exempted, the BATFE and Law enforcement know where all guns are at all times. This enables:

1. When a person becomes ineligible by conviction in a felony, or by application of a Domestic Violence charge (even a misdemeanor) or a DV-related restraining order, the police can knock on the suspects door with a list of all semi-auto firearms that person owns, and demand they hand them over. Today, people are required to do so, but the police don't know what people have, so the person might not hand over all the guns, or might say they don't have any at all.

2. The BATFE can knock on the person's door and ask to inspect and make sure the guns are still there, and haven't been sold off to ineligible parties.

3. Guns recovered from crimes can be traced to the point they jumped from lawful owners, to criminal's hands.

It's a win-win-win scenario.

Banning large magazines not so much (possibly hundreds and certainly tens of millions already in circulation...a ban would only create a massive black market). Moreover, the range of things that can disqualify a person from gun ownership should be expanded and the associated data brought into the NICS database used to conduct background checks.

for it all to be federal same for carry permits.

If sold overseas, they will be smuggled back into the US.

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-state-department-approved-weapons-sales-company-made-sandy-hook

"Hillary Clinton presents herself as a tough advocate for gun control. But the State Department she led for four years helped approve more than $100 million in weapons sales for a handful of companies — including the manufacturer of the AR-15 semi-automatic that Adam Lanza used to kill 20 children in Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012."

The same way we sell grenades, fighter jets and tanks to our allies.

Are you saying we shouldn't sell any of those weapons to our allies because they might get smuggled back into the US?

We sold assault rifles to allies back when assault rifles were banned for private citizens in the US and the ban still worked, even if not perfectly. No law works perfectly; every law has people who break it. That is why we have this thing called law enforcement.

I hope this is addressed in the debates...

Unless your going to war, and every American has that choice because we are in constant war lately - AR15's don't belong in the hands of everyday Americans...

This gun culture definitely needs slapped down a serious notch, and after all these mass killings the time has come for strong legislation to end this bullshit.. no more excuses from D's - push for, the majority of the electorate is with you.. The NRA is the first dangerous Corp that needs muzzled..

They use the M-16 or the M4.

9 million AR-15's are in circulation in the US. What role do you feel they have, if you know they aren't used by any army in the world for actual combat?

Military style weapons (like the beloved AR-15) aren't for hunting or personal protection.. they are for mass KILLING. PERIOD

a battle rifle and a sniper rifle. Today, it's your grandpa's deer rifle, and no one bats an eye.

So it is relevant, I don't think you know what a strawman is, and if we want to create legislation that does something meaningful to curtail certain types of firearms availability, it would be a good idea to be specific about what exactly it is that needs to be curtailed.

spray a room of innocent people with bullets & kill and/or injure 100+ people within minutes?? I don't think so..


I am no gun expert.. but I am sure there are reasonable restrictions to access of these weapons... but you know this already.

That AR has a high cyclic rate. This is a reasonable item to regulate. That does enable shooing a lot of people. I suggested a means of registering and ensuring people who might not be entirely stable, but also haven't been adjudicated mentally unfit or convicted of a felony, might be denied such weapons upthread, based on some existing laws already in use on fully-automatic weapons today.

But there's power, and there's power. That AR can certainly kill someone every time you shoot someone with it. But that US M1917 can go through four people and maybe more, killing them all if you line then up. The AR can't. Yes, you'd end up shooting fewer people with the bolt-action, but the wounds and lethality of those hits would be much, much worse. Walt Whitman used a similar weapon for most of his murders in the Clock Tower Massacre.



Bottom line, ANY semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine is just as risky as the AR for public use. So that's most firearms going back to the 1930's, with some notable exceptions.

ALL firearms development is informed by or based on military design and usage, so that wasn't a meaningful distinction by itself.

Walt Whitman was a renowned American poet.

an AR-15 and other rifles of that ilk only appeal to mass murderers because they can accept 30 round magazines. Ban possession of those, and make possession punishable by a 10 year prison sentence, and I think you will have accomplished something.

If Hillary's assault weapons ban is anything like the 1994 version, it will accomplish nothing, because it won't address the umpteen million guns and hi capacity magazines that are in existence.

Tens of millions of them out there.

On the other hand, the 100-round beta mags are not common use, not standard, and probably easy targets for legislative limits. Be a good start.

Dunno about scoping everything down to a 10-round mag. Biggest thing that people objected to from the 1994 AWB.

(2) 5-round clips from the factory. But that was 30 years ago and my memory could be fuzzy. I did pick up a few 30-round clips for it.

That rifle was a lot of fun to shoot; it was as loud as hell but very accurate st 200 yds.

I sold it before the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill. I really wasn't using it, and didn't have any decent land to shoot it on. I think I got about twice what I paid for it, since people were buying up every AR in sight in anticipation of the ban.

I've lived a perfectly satisfactory life without it. I think gun owners are finally going to have to make some major concessions. There are just too many fucking crazy people trying to set a new body count high score, and they're drawn to these things like files to shit. I can't think of any compelling reasons why people can't live with 7 or 10 round magazines. I'd rather face a quiver of muskets than a 30 round magazine in an AR.

Oh yeah, and fuck the NRA.

I couldn't tell you when the changeover happened, but it's currently tied to caliber. .223 comes with a 20 or 30 round mag. .308 comes with 10 or 20 rounds.

you feel about magazine size restrictions? Keep the rifle but round up all the 20 & 30 round mags.

Banning new ones has been done and didn't end the world. Rounding up existing ones is legally and logistically problematic, however.

But on the other hand, when they aren't legal to make new, the price goes up and that right there can price criminals out of the market. A truly fully automatic rifle that can be legally registered, is more than 30 years old now, minimum, and at least $7,000, if not $30,000 or higher. That can have a chilling effect on criminal activity. (Measurable too, since only two weapons on that NFA registry that were legally possessed have been used in crimes since the registry's inception.)


Mag size limits have their place. I prefer registration. Registering mags is also an interesting idea.

I do believe in the RKBA, but so far no one has given me a really compelling argument in favor of keeping 30 round mags. Yeah, they're fun at the range, but I suspect that most people don't regularly plink with their ARs; they're for bragging rights. Home defense? For $200 you can't beat a 12 Ga Mossberg 500. For plinking at cans, the Ruger 1022 is an old standby; I've had mine for over 40 years. And I still use the original 10 round rotary clip.

Enough is enough!

This is one time that I am happy to stand with Hillary Clinton.

and as a Bernie supporter I would ask that he sign on too.

or are we going to keep her under the bus anyway just because?

There is a greater chance of sensible gun legislation from a Dem president with a Dem congress than we'll ever get from Trump and the gun humping party. The NRA will probably suggest arming everyone in nightclubs.

We need to push for a complete repeal of the Second Amendment and replace it with a new amendment that bans and confiscates ALL guns. Anything less than that will simply result in more massacres like this most recent one.

First we'll have to call for a Constitutional Convention. It will be impossible to keep the Convention to one point, the Second Amendment, in this case. It will turn into an instant shit-show where every group in America proposes something they have a gripe about. Every option will be on the table, abortion, marriage, every frigging tax ever and the IRS in particular, will all go through the ringer.

Once that dust is settled and some kind of list of changes is approved, then the states have to ratify it, which can take years. Then more procedures in DC before the new amendments become reality in the Constitution.

At the end of it all, we'd have a very different America than we have now and there's a good chance the Second Amendment would never get touched.

Are you ready for that kind of a slog?

By all means, go for it and start the process.

All we need to do is overturn the ridiculous 5-4 Heller decision. It was the right wing Supreme Court majority, and specifically Scalia, who authored the Heller decidion that overturned 200 years of precedence to read into the 2nd Am a private right to own guns. Scalia is now dead. The next Supreme Court justice will be appointed by Obama or Hillary. That person will make it 5-4 against the ruling in Heller.

I like to think we are better than they are.

There is PLENTY of restriction that can be done within the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment as a individual right that would curtail this sort of attack. There's really no need to change it. Even Heller built in exemptions like 'not in common use' and 'not carry anywhere at any time' etc.

Same thing with Roe. I think Roe could be made stronger by a progresdive majority on the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsberg has suggested that to needs to be done regardless.

along the same lines as the 2nd amendment. That would shut some right-wingers up right there. Can't attack one without undermining the other.

I view RvW as a stop-gap measure in the meantime.

I'm digressing though.

Constitutional amendment strengthening the 2d Amendment than repealing it.

If the state had absolute access to all of our communications, personal information, etc. at any time, for any reason. No warrants, no oversight, just the good intentions of the well meaning police state.

Police state could quarter troops in the private homes of persons under suspect.

There are hundreds of millions of legal guns and you would have active armed systematic resistance from hundreds of thousands of gun nutters if you tried absolute confiscation.

Its never going to happen. You absolute banners are every bit as deluded as the gun nutters. You will never get the votes in the states to repeal anyway.

I am for banning assault weapons, huge magazine capacity, etc. I just get frustrated when I hear utterly unrealistic calls for absolute repeal, ban, and confiscation of all guns.

If you are not advocating for that, then I am fine, and of course the government COULD win, but the cost would be horrific, and also would start a never-ending guerilla war.

they're all talk. Their impotent rage via keyboard commandoing would be hilarious.

long culture of armed warfare and rebellion in the North America continent. Also an ethos enshrined in the American Revolution and Declaration of Independence against tyranny, an ethos endemic in USA culture at a thousand myriad inflection points.

Number one, you have to get the 2nd Amendment repealed. Two-thirds of the House and Senate would have to approve of the proposal (will never happen) and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

That will also neverever happen. Look how hard it is to even get an assault weapons ban.

Just 13 states can block it.

here is double that number (26) who would NEVER vote for it

Alabama
Alaska
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming
Montana
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Mississippi
Kentucky
Louisiana
Arkansas
Georgia
Idaho
Michigan
North Carolina
North Dakota
Wisconsin



I would be hard pressed to find any out of the remaining who would support it


maybe these 6, if you are lucky


Connecticut
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
New Jersey


these are what's left

Arizona
Colorado
Delaware
California
Florida
Illinois
Maine
Minnesota
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Washington

Republicans on hot seat over gun control
Senate Democrats are pressing for another vote to bar suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms.
By SEUNG MIN KIM, BURGESS EVERETT and JOHN BRESNAHAN 06/13/16 08:53 AM EDT Updated 06/13/16 01:12 PM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Congressional Democrats are wasting little time putting Republicans on the hot seat after the massacre in Orlando, Florida, demanding that recalcitrant GOP lawmakers join their effort to bar suspected terrorists from buying guns or face the political fallout.
Democrats said Monday they will revive legislation that would allow the FBI to deny firearms purchased by people on terrorism watch lists, a proposal which failed in December on a mostly party-line vote, 45-54. Democrats said on Monday that they will try to attach the new firearm prohibitions to the Commerce, Justice and Science spending bill that will be on the Senate floor this week.
Story Continued Below
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could move to block another vote on the proposal. But if the Senate does hold a vote, Democrats won't be shy about targeting vulnerable Republican senators.
“We believe we’ll do better than we did last time," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “Circumstances are going to force them to see the light."
The legislation has become a key plank of Democrats' anti-terror agenda, which they believe will put a half-dozen vulnerable incumbent senators on the wrong side of voters. Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois was the lone Republican to support the proposal six months ago.
“Closing this loophole is just common sense. It’s the least we can do to prevent terrorist attacks by our country," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “I don’t know what it will take to change the mindset of this Congress."
It's not clear if any of the Democratic proposals would have prevented the shooter, 29-year-old Omar Mateen, from buying weapons. Forty-nine people were killed and dozens more injured in the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.
“Would they have blocked Mateen’s gun? I think it’s likely they would have but we will never know because it wasn’t on the books," Schumer said of the terrorism watch-list proposal.
Mateen was on a federal watch list but was later removed, according to the Los Angeles Times. Officials said Sunday that he had been interviewed twice by the FBI in 2013 for allegedly making “inflammatory comments” to co-workers that implied he had terrorism ties.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/orlando-shooting-gun-control-224251#ixzz4BTvyRF8s
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

and you certainly can't do it with a no-fly list that has no trial, no court review, and no method for correction. Honestly, did everyone miss civics class?

The only way they get away with the list is that you don't have a Constitutional right to fly on an airplane.

What other rights should we take away for those on the list - Right to privacy? How about free speech or free exercise? Maybe take the 5th away too? And we want the right-wingers to accept that there are rights to abortion, same-sex marriage, LGBT equal rights, all under the Constitution, but then act exactly like them when it comes to a different right in the Bill of Rights. Honestly!

Oh yeah, you can't make people get a license to exercise a Constitutional right, either.

What you can do is attempt to change the Constitution.

It was the right wing Supreme Court majority, and specifically Scalia, who authored the Heller decidion that overturned 200 years of precedence to read into the 2nd Am a private right to own guns. Scalia is now dead. The next Supreme Court justice will be appointed by Obama or Hillary. That person will make it 5-4 against the ruling in Heller.

If you think 1 different judge will overrule a major decision like that less than 10 years after the decision.

It's not like Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson where the court deprived a class of people of their rights. Heller affirmed rights under the 2nd amendment, and I think it'll be harder to overturn because of that.

In addition, just recently the court refused to hear a politically motivated Obamacare case 9-0 because the court has just recently spoken on Obamacare. One would think that with 5 justices on the court (until Scalia died) they could have wreaked all kinds of havoc with Obamacare, Roe v Wade, and all kinds of conservative pet projects.

In perhaps the best example, the conservative court voted 9-0 to not hear a new case regarding LGBT rights after weighing in on LGBT rights the previous year.

Existing judges give WIDE latitude to prior decisions, especially when citizens are not denied any rights.

Heller places gun fetishism over Americans' personal safety.

and self defense in the home. There's nothing about AR-15's, there's nothing about killing people, there's nothing about mass killings, there's nothing about carrying weapons to and fro, and there's nothing like anything what you are describing.

this crazy person in Florida had to break a shitload of laws, both federal and state, in order to do what he did. The man was a terrorist, and he was legally employed in the security business. Would he have been able to do what he did if Heller wasn't the law of the land, of course he would have.

There have been very few decisions that have later been overturned by a different court. If the supreme court is going to overturn anything, i'd prefer they overturn Citizen's United.

It overruled a gun control measure that was passed by a democratically elected city government to keep guns out of their city.

Sorry, but the minute you start saying guns are about "self defense in the home," I realize you are repeating NRA bullshit talking points and I know I cannot have an honest discussion with you.

"1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 576-626"

That's directly from the decision itself, not an NRA talking point, and I am far from an NRA believer or supporter.

I just believe in pragmatism and doing the most good. Your willful ignorance on the issues accomplishes nothing. Repealing Citizens United is a better focus of our energy and efforts. In addition, repealing CU will significantly reduce the power of the NRA When they can't buy politicians.

The 2nd Am was about providing for a "well regulated" citizens' militia so as to avoid a standing army. The founding fathers feared a standing army would undo democracy. Well we got stuck with a standing army anyway because it is a necessary fact of life for a superpower in the modern world. The 2nd Am is an anachronism.

Scalia basically restated right wing/NRA talking points in his outrageous opinion. If you want to know all the ways he was full of shit, read the Heller dissent. It is you who is willfully ignorant, not me.

Doesn't make the dissent correct. From a historical perspective, the majority got it right in Heller. Even if there is no longer a need for a citizens-militia, the Second Amendment plainly states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and it doesn't condition that right on service in a militia but protects the right of "the people" - i.e., everyone. If folks think the Second Amendment has outlived its purpose or is outdated then get it repealed, but that decision is one that needs to be made by the elected representatives, not a court.

You, like Scalia, misread the 2nd Am and don't know the relevant history.

Stevens, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit


Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

Quite a dishonest claim you make, but that is typical of pro-gun arguments.

The "right" the Dissent was talking about was the right to maintain well-regulated militias as a way to avoid a standing army. As the Dissent you so dishonestly truncated went on to state right after you cut off the text:

The dissent, after admitting that the right can unquestionably be exercised by individuals, tries to pretend that its a 'militia' right, when no such right of the militia is necessary, because congress was granted power over the militia in the constitution.

Then, theres also the fact, the it isn't the militia whos rights shall not be infringed, its the people.

And then theres the preamble to the bill of rights, which spells out precisely what the purpose of the bill of rights, including amendment 2, is.


You, are wrong.

I'm wrong, Congress is wrong, President Obama is wrong, and the majority of the American people are wrong.


But you're right.

And the right to keep and bear arms is supported by a majority of Americans (around 60% in the last I'll I saw), so Heller is in line with popular opinion.

Had it ruled like the Dissent in that 5-4 case said it should have ruled, and the NRA and GOP were not pushing gun fetishism as a Constitutional right for the last 40 years, public opinion would be different.

But assuming you are correct that doesn't change the fact that public opinion supports an individual right to keep and bear arms. And Heller isn't the bogeyman that people make it out to be - it changed very little and only directly impacted two cities, DC and Chicago, that had handgun bans in place (and yet were two of the most dangerous cities in America). Heller permits all kinds of regulations, it just forbids complete bans on firearms (and probably some other laws too, though that is to be determined). There's no chance that the US is going to enact a firearms ban, although there is perhaps a tiny chance that some sort of "assault weapon" ban will pass if the Dems regain control of both senate and the house.

And Heller absolutely is a radical departure from Supreme Court precedent and misreads the 2nd Am to read a private right to have guns that is simply not stated in that text. The Heller Dissent gave exhaustive reasons why the Scalia majority opinion is dead wrong.

If public opinion swayed our Congress, then we would have a federal background check, since 90% of Americans favored that after Sandy Hook. But it never even got to a vote.

And when the public overwhelmingly supports something like background checks then our elected representatives should act.

Or you would see abortion banned in a lot of states. Same-sex marriage as well.

Though I'd prefer to have the Supreme Court weighing in on these types of issues than the Alabama state legislature (for example).

Right now the NRA, together with the Republicans and some Dixiecrats are stepping on the scales.

One can argue about the banning of owning a gun may be abused by a federal government to include political foes, or protest group members, etc.. I am a supporter of Edward Snowden and the exposure of the abuse by the NSA on mass civil data gathering. But there must be some kind of line.

Because if that's the case, what is the worst case scenario that you fear of this ability to ban owning assault type rifles to terrorist watch listers? That the government may secretly include environmentalist group members?, or Occupy group members? Why would these group members even need assault weapons? If one of them had a history of association with violent radical groups, and espousing violent comments online and had a big collection of guns themselves, and maybe even with a mental illness history, frankly those groups are better served if this member is prevented from owning assault rifles. There is no useful purpose for Occupy, or Greenpeace to promote assault weapon ownership.

We have laws for driving licensees. And if someone abuses that right, they may get put on a kind of watch list, and be banned from driving for a period of time. Other drivers on the road feel safer that that person is not on the road and I'm sure would not be angry that this person is denied that privilege.

LGBT and rights and equal marriage laws. Yes we support that, but there are say, also laws on public decency, for both hetro and gay couples. In extreme cases where a couple may be fornicating in public view of minors, they are stopped from doing that. It doesn't matter if they are legally married or not, or what sexual persuasion they are. Their rights of freedom of expression are curbed by the will of the majority.

Then there's the good ole shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater.

To me sometimes it seems like gun nuts overlook other restrictions in society for the good of all because they are so pumped up on dopamine just thinking about that cold metal killing machine in their hands that they can't even allow themselves to think reasonably.

I see gun control being as big of a losing issue politically for us as the anti-choice movement is for the Repugs. It's a right that has already been established by the constitution and courts. If we want more people to vote Democrat, pushing this gun control agenda is not going to help that cause. Just my two cents.