Perfect!

and gnashing of teeth is all on the prohibitionists. The equivocation would be absolutely laughable if it were about something less important to individual security and the security of a free state. Seeing how the 2nd has ultimately been interpreted and has developed into settled case law, the quote, "shaky knowledge of junior high kids in a summer civics class." seems to apply directly to those who can't grasp or more likely wish to allude and dilute the meaning of words. Of coarse there is a solution for the author..there is always the amendment process...but alas, prohibitionists have no desire to put their blood, sweat and tears into the changes they gnash for...no, they are the extreme pretenders in their belief that even a few feel as they do...even right here on DU in GD an attempt to amend or remove the second is/would be strongly opposed. Now about applying your passion to things which may actually be possible and help reduce violence..oh, I know, no interest because if violence was actually attacked at the cause, and had the desired effect, the argument for increased regulation of their passionately hated inanimate objects would be even less logical to the junior high mentality they appeal to, than it is now.

Nt

nt

You don't think outlawing large capacity magazines would "reduce violence", by making lone shooters vulnerable to unarmed attack while having to reload to wound more than two or three people?

depends. JL was taken down after his gun jammed because of the magazine. Holmes had the same problem with his mall ninja magazine and caused more carnage with a shotgun.

It didn't work. Magazines are considered either disposable or semi-disposable commodities. They will be lost, or wear out, or whatever. It is the nature of the beast, as such metric-crap-tonnes of these things have been produced. Of cats and bags....

If by "large capacity" you mean 13-30 rounds, than you are incorrect in your terminology, as those are typically the capacities modern weapons are designed to have, which would make those mags, "standard." True increased capacity magazines are often unreliable (jamming often) and unduly large (making the weapon more unwieldy). Seriously, large mags are a bitch on the range (I prefer 20rd mags for my AR for just this reason), I can't even imagine fighting with one under stress.

standard depends on the individual gun. Cho had two pistols that had ten round magazines. He reloaded several times

Those numbers are chosen by the engineers for reasons, physical reasons whose supporting laws carry more authority than any statute that could be conceived by mortal minds.

We can look at what the math says is optimal under the circumstances, and designate that as "standard" or we can totally ignore reality for the imposed fantasy of some probably-knows-fuck-all-about-the-highly-technical-thing-he-wants-to-regulate/ban politician on a hill in what would be a malarial swamp if not for DDT( which they, you know, banned).

Popular weapons have had, as indicated above, "metric-shit-tonnes" of magazines already produced and delivered. How do you intend to put that cat back into its bag, or are you just going to ignore that point too?

Frankly, I'm a little peeved by your terse, dismissive response to what I consider to be serious flaws in your reasoning. I expected exposition and discussion and got "your ideas don't matter because, well, fuck you, I'll bring the cudgel of the state down on your ass."

If you propose banning something that would affect millions of people that never used it to harm someone, you had better be more prepared to back up your reasoning why.

I do, however, believe that access to mental health services and addiction services would have a dramatic effect. I believe decriminalization of most drugs would have a dramatic effect. I believe voluntary access to NICS for private transfers of firearms along with a public service campaign would reduce the effects of the fabled "gun show loophole". But alas, no interest in doing anything but violating the constitution, a completely impossible task....but it does make for interesting opportunities for fund raising to support those who perpetuate these impossible ideas.

He and his ilk are free to propose laws as they see fit.

Good luck with that. Even the Whitehouse is saying the President does not support new federal laws to address gun violence.

Not even that old too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117254546

OP would remember that thread if he spent more time in discussion rather than dumping news clips.

Speak for yourself op ed writer....

Might as well make it official. Don't half-ass our transformation from a free state to a slave state.

Well, actually, shooting paper targets is exactly what you do with that configuration. And the 100-round magazine is ilegal for hunting everywhere I know of... which is why they make 5-round mags for that purpose.

But I guess fear-laden hyperbole is more fun than facts....

Why are you dredging up old articles to post again?

Then again, they could be the same people that rec'd it last time.

That is one of the big problems with the media today. They are creating news instead of simply reporting news as they should be doing.

"...a semi-automatic assault rifle..."

The above phrase is an oxymoron.

"Chauncey Hollingsworth"? Who walks around with a name like that?
I don't know if I believe a thing he has written.

oxy="written by a"

I got to the part about people not using AR-15s and AKs for shooting paper targets when his last little shred of credibility flew out the window.

I am wondering though; If those weren't paper targets I shot at the range last week, what was I actually shooting!!!!!

Guess I better go check the range for bodies.

Mean ol', no good, very bad assault rifle. Go sit in the corner gun safe and think about what you've done.

But the sad fact is that American society can no longer handle the responsibility of private gun ownership. We've lost whatever internal gyroscopes enabled us to monitor ourselves and our conduct. We need stronger legal controls on gun ownership, including not only background checks but mental fitness exams and mandatory training.

I think it's strange that for a society that can no longer handle the responsibility of private gun ownership, violent crime has continued its decades-long decline.

If violent crime is any kind of metric, if anything, society is getting more responsible all the time.

There should be at least as much required to own a gun as there is to obtain a driver's license.

Remember, you don't need a driver's license unless you want to operate a vehicle on public roads. If you want to use one on private property, no license is required.

Instead, even people on the government's terrorist watch list are legally able to purchase firearms.

Oh yeah, baby! Because that paragon of due process is just the sort of secret blacklist I want my government to operate from. A list that the government admits has known terrorists excluded from it and known non-terrorists on it. A list that you can't find out if you are on or not. A list that the late Senator Kennedy found himself on. A list with no recourse to due process.

Yeah. That "terror watch list" is a fine idea.

There are obvious reasons that firearms in the hands of civilians make less and less sense: denser populations; higher powered weaponry; ever-looser regulation that prevents weapons from being effectively tracked from owner to owner, better enabling sales to criminals. But just as important is the dissolution of the social mores that once corralled the behavior of civilian gun-owners: the knowledge of one's neighbors; a sense of participation in a community; respect for others, even if their political views didn't align with your own.

There is only one reason justified in the constitution for why people should keep and bear arms. It doesn't limit ownership to only that reason, but it is the only reason mentioned. It's not hunting, even especially self-defense. It's about owning military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use so that the people will have the means to defend free states. That means warfare. That means killing people who threaten the security of free states.

It doesn't matter how dense populations may get or how powerful military arms may get. This has nothing to do with the stated intent of the second amendment.

And tracking owners runs directly counter to the intent of the second amendment.

Even my dad, of the fallout shelter and the loaded pistol under the bed ruffle, would've viewed someone who owned a semi-automatic assault rifle as dangerously antisocial. You don't shoot paper targets or hunt with an AK-47 or AR-15 with a drum magazine.

Remember, the intent of the second amendment is not target shooting nor hunting.

Obviously if you are legally armed and your situational awareness has failed you and you find yourself facing a person armed with a handgun who wants your wallet you face a tough decision. If the person appears rational and sane and you believe that all he wants is your wallet, your best decision is to give it to him. You can always replace your money, credit cards and ID. You can't replace your health as easily and if you end up dead it's final.

A handgun is not a particularly lethal weapon. You might draw and fire your own weapon and hit your attacker but there is a strong possibility that he will shoot you.

If however, you believe that the mugger is unstable and extremely dangerous and intends to kill you even if you comply, you have little to lose by attempting to fight back.

(I learned this lesson many years ago in a martial arts class which focused on self defense.)

The second interesting part was:



I remember an incident that happened to a co-worker that involved a road raged individual. My co-worker arrived at our workplace visibly shaken. He was driving to work for the graveyard shift when for some reason he irritated another driver. They ended up at a traffic light. My co-worker had traffic in front of him, on his left and on his right was a deep drainage ditch. The angry individual got out of his vehicle and approached my co-workers car with a tire iron in his hand. My friend who had a concealed weapons permit got his firearm out of the glove box and placed it in his hand across his steering wheel. When the angry person approach the drivers side window he noticed the firearm and returned to his car. The incident ended peacefully. My co-worker pointed out that had he not been blocked in by traffic his first choice would have been to run the red light at drive off if the opposing traffic would have permitted it.

I notice that the writer of the article ignores the simple fact that since victim rights laws such as "shall issue" concealed carry, "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" passed, the violent crime rate has dropped significantly. During that same period of time the sale of firearms has skyrocketed in our nation.

Obviously victim rights laws and the number of firearms in civilian hands are just two of the factors in the violent crime equation. Therefore it would be foolish to attribute the drop in the violent crime rate to these factors. However if these two factors were extremely important, surely the violent crime would have increased rather than decreased.