Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ColDayMan

Gun Rights

Recommended Posts

I'll make my point more succinctly...... individuals owning and maintaining assault rifles capable of holding enough rounds to kill a small village without reloading does nothing to promote the ability to maintain a "well-regulated militia".... in fact, it kind of runs contrary to it.  I also am not aware of any recreational sport or hobby which requires such a powerful firearm.

 

Police: Colo. shooting suspect bought guns legally

 

AURORA, Colo. (AP) — James Holmes is accused of carrying out one of the worst mass shootings in recent U.S. history, but police say there was nothing illegal about the guns and ammunition he allegedly used during a Colorado movie theater attack.

 

"All the weapons that he possessed, he possessed legally," Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said. "And all the clips that he possessed, he possessed legally. And all the ammunition that he possessed, he possessed legally."

 

*  *  *  *  *

 

Gander Mountain, which sold an AR-15 assault rifle believed to be used in the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, said the company was in compliance with state and federal laws and that it was "fully cooperating with this ongoing investigation."

 

A second federal law enforcement official said Holmes had a high-capacity ammunition magazine in the assault rifle. Oates said a 100-round drum magazine was recovered at the scene.

 

The type of ammunition magazine Holmes is accused of using was banned for new production under the old federal assault weapon ban, said Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

 

When the ban expired in 2004, gun manufacturers flooded the market with the type of high-capacity magazines Holmes used Friday, Vice said.

 

Oates did not specify the type of rifle but said that experts told him "with that drum magazine, he could have gotten off 50 to 60 rounds, even if it was semiautomatic, within one minute. And as far as we know, it was a pretty rapid pace of fire in that theater."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/police-colo-shooting-suspect-bought-guns-legally-083528305.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a ban on the private ownership of guns keep things like this from happening?  Possibly, but maybe not.

 

Would mandatory government psychological evaluation followed up by the confinement of those that this evaluation deems to be "dangerous" keep things like this from happening?  Maybe.  Maybe not. 

 

Leaving aside the fact that either would be grossly unconstitutional, I suspect that everyone here, most definitely including me, would agree that in the latter case, the "cure" would be worse than the disease.

 

Gun control opponents also believe that about the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would argue that you definitely have a right to self defense, and for that I would absolutely use precedent of what the 2nd Amendment got you back in 1800. You have the right to own a weapon that is fairly accurate in close range, and not at all accurate beyond that. You do not have the right to own a weapon that can enable you to kill dozens of people in minutes with only reloading once, and you also don't have the right to own a weapon that can kill someone much too far away to be an active threat to you.

At the time, the weapons you refer to were the weapons the military had.  The very intent of the Second Amendment was that the people were as well armed as the government.  Did the Framers realize that this would give the people the capability to resist the government?  Yes, indeed that was intentional.

 

You speak earlier of other nations being ahead of us in various indices.  That may be true, but one of the reasons is that we are a free society that allows its citizens to engage in behaviors which might be self destructive.  This allowance is both de jure. and de facto, the latter inherent in our refusal to violate Constitutional principles to enforce certain laws more effectively.

 

In effect, we place liberty ahead of safety and other considerations.  Whether or not the cure is worse than the disease is often debated, but our tendency is to err on the side of freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean I can own my own nuclear armed submarine?  In fact, I would say a fleet of them might be necessary for me to take on the government.

 

And again.... why do people feel there is no distinction between gun control and a firearms ban?  I am in favor of the former..... there are a lot of people who would advocate for an outright ban, but we know that will never happen.  However, banning all firearms is a far cry from restricting civilian access to semi automatic assault rifles with supersized cartridges and armor piercing bullets.  Sure, some will still sneak their way onto the market, but the inevitable massive drop in supply should significantly reduce the likelihood of similar tragedies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the time, the weapons you refer to were the weapons the military had.  The very intent of the Second Amendment was that the people were as well armed as the government.  Did the Framers realize that this would give the people the capability to resist the government?  Yes, indeed that was intentional.

 

But the government now has nukes and neutron bombs and drones and everything else. If the idea is to have an even playing field between the people and the government, the Second Amendment should reasonably be interpreted as the right to bare nukes. Technology has made the original intent obsolete. Holding the second amendment up like it's gospel, without acknowledging that technology has completely changed the ballgame, is delusional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on the other hand, one might make the argument that more law abiding citizens should be carrying...  perhaps if someone in that theater besides the psychopath shooter had been carrying a Glock 9mm, they could've returned fire with deadly force right away and countless lives could've been saved...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy came prepared. He had body armor, gas mask, and lots of guns. He threw a gas canister into the crowd first to disorient everyone. If anyone was going to return fire, they probably would not have hurt him because he was heavily protected and disguised in the smoke/chaos. If someone had shot back, they more than likely would have hit more innocent bystanders or missed the target's vulnerable areas. I really don't think someone with a gun would have solved anything. Of course it's possible, but this guy had thought this act through very carefully. It's naive to pretend that one or two people in the theater with guns would have stopped anything.

 

Anything beyond hunting rifles and handguns with small cartridges should be illegal. The idea that you need a semi-automatic or fully-automatic weapon for anything in civilian life is ridiculous IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's naive to pretend that one or two people in the theater with guns would have stopped anything.

 

Couldn't disagree more.  Shooter was in complete control because nobody was shooting at him.  Even with his body armor, the entire scenario would've gone down totally different had he not been the only one with a gun in that place and I'd wager a good sum that less people would've been killed & injured.  If you get shot in the torso while wearing a Kevlar vest, you're still going down.  Shot in the face?  Game over.  Countless lives saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It undoubtedly would have been a great thing if someone had been in that theater with a weapon and sufficient skill to neutralize the shooter.  But universalizing that into a prescription for public order is pretty iffy.  Would the average person have had sufficient skill and judgement to adequately deal with someone armed with an assault rifle in a dark, very crowded theater?  How many of those people have to exist, armed at all times, in order to have more than a passing chance to have been in that theater on that night at that time? And in the process of allowing more guns into the hands of those qualified people, how many are we also allowing into the hands of jackasses and hotheads?  How many people will die as a result of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's naive to pretend that one or two people in the theater with guns would have stopped anything.

 

Couldn't disagree more.  Shooter was in complete control because nobody was shooting at him.  Even with his body armor, the entire scenario would've gone down totally different had he not been the only one with a gun in that place and I'd wager a good sum that less people would've been killed & injured.  If you get shot in the torso while wearing a Kevlar vest, you're still going down.  Shot in the face?  Game over.  Countless lives saved.

 

Fantasy.  We're talking about civilians being attacked when they least suspect it, not Seal Team 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantasy?  Maybe there's an off duty cop in the theater who has his gun on him?  You know how many CCW permits have been issued in Ohio?  I guess you haven't been to the gun range lately but you don't have to be Seal Team 6 to pick off this fool with a headshot from 20 yds away in the theater...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ He threw what has been reported as tear gas. I'm sure people were running around, it was dark, there was smoke, and he is unloading rounds into the seats with heavy weapons. Who is going to stand up and fire at a smokey room and hope to hit the guy? It is unrealistic to expect an average joe to just pick this guy off without serious training and balls of steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantasy?  Maybe there's an off duty cop in the theater who has his gun on him?  You know how many CCW permits have been issued in Ohio?  I guess you haven't been to the gun range lately but you don't have to be Seal Team 6 to pick off this fool with a headshot from 20 yds away in the theater...

 

Shooting at the range is a very different proposition from shooting in a dark room with panicked people running in all directions and a heavily armed madman shooting at you.  Even a trained marksman's accuracy will dip significantly, a random civilian will most likely be firing almost randomly.  So yes, fantasy.  A little time at the range helps fuel that fantasy more than it makes someone competent to handle that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A cowboy's bullet ricochets off the body armor and fatally wounds the six year old girl curled up in the fetal position in an aisle...... that would be a prosecutorial dilemma

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, just so it's clear - the Admins understand the desire for threads like this to exist, so people with similar interests can discuss current events. That said - there's no obligation on the Admins part to offer space on the forum for threads like this - it's offered as a courtesy, please treat it as such and if you disagree with someone - do it with respect. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if he is not schitzophrenic.  Often times, symptoms do not present until your early 20's.  Happened to a buddy of mine..... perfectly normal and then I come home from college one time and poof, he's gone.  I will note that being schitzo does not automatically equate to being criminally insane.  "Insane" is a legal term not really used in the medical field outside of testimony to meet certain legal standards.  Seems to me that, regardless of his condition, Holmes knew what he was doing was wrong and understood the consequences of his actions.... therefore, he will not get off on an insanity defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoot while you wait: Alabama GOP plans election night party at gun range

 

Alabama Republicans plan to hold their election night party at a gun range, where participants will be able to shoot a few rounds as returns come in. The state Republican Party is inviting supporters to the 52,000-square-foot Hoover Tactical Firearms for a "victory party" Tuesday night.

 

- A party announcement says the shooting ranges will be available for two hours during the election event. There will also be a band and an appearance by Miss Alabama. Loaded guns will be allowed only on the firing range and a party spokeswoman says drinking won't be allowed while people are shooting. Republicans are expecting GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney to easily carry Alabama.

 

More below:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/05/shoot-while-wait-alabama-gop-plans-election-night-party-at-gun-range/?test=latestnews


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Eve of Election, Pro-Gunners Suggest Building IEDs for War With U.S. Government

 

Hofmann, a former member of the Army's 319th Field Artillery Regiment, was disabled after a serious automobile accident in 2002 and is now confined to a wheelchair. Since January 2009, he has been blogging as the "St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner" with Examiner.com. In his tweet, Hofmann directed us to a blog he published there in March entitled, "Perhaps There's Something to the Claim that Guns Alone Cannot Rein in Government."

 

- In the piece, Hofmann pushes back against pundits who mock modern-day insurrectionists by pointing out that "against a military superpower such as the U.S. ...citizens with their private small arms would not stand a chance." For example, Hofmann quotes Jenna Myers Karvunidis, who opines, "If it just came down to a battle of arms between you and the government, you are not going to win that one. It would be like playing road chicken with a tank." Responding to these criticisms, Hofmann makes it clear that firearms are not the only weapon at the disposal of Americans who hate their government. "It cannot be denied that for some Constitutional militia applications, weapons heavier than those found in most gun safes would be very useful," he writes.

 

- Hofmann obviously forgot to read the Constitution, which states that the Militia's purpose is to "suppress Insurrections," not foment them. It would be tempting to dismiss Hofmann as an aberration -- an isolated extremist with little ability to inspire actual acts of violence -- except for two important factors. The first is that Hofmann's disturbing call to use IEDs against American service members has been defended by a broad swath of the pro-gun movement. This includes statements of support from "The War on Guns" blogger David Codrea, "No Lawyers -- Only Guns and Money" blogger John Richardson, the pro-gun Calumet Foundation, "Gun Free Zone" blogger Miguel Gonzalez, "Guns Save Life" blogger John Boch, "Days of Our Trailers" blogger Roy Kubicek (AKA "Thirdpower"), "Shall Not Be Questioned" blogger/NRA election volunteer coordinator Keith Milligan (AKA "Sebastian") and "Of Arms & the Law" blogger David Hardy, among others.

 

Full article below:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/on-eve-of-election-pro-gu_b_2075429.html


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oklahomans Prepare for New Law That Will Make Guns a Common Sight

 

OKLAHOMA CITY — Bryan Hull will soon strap his Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver to his hip and meet his armed friends at Beverly’s Pancake House here. They have no interest in the cash register. They just want a late-night breakfast.

 

Businesses like First Fidelity Bank, in Norman, Okla., must decide how to handle those openly carrying guns.

 

A new law takes effect on Thursday in Oklahoma — anyone licensed to carry a concealed firearm can choose to carry a weapon out in the open, in a belt or shoulder holster, loaded or unloaded.

 

More below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/us/oklahoma-prepares-for-open-carry-gun-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are as useful to me as a drug like heroin/crack/PCP/LSD etc. I have no use for any of these things. Nor do I  understand the attraction of having such destructive things. I don't see that humans have shown the ability to use them responsibly. And as such if guns were made illegal tomorrow, I would not miss them one bit.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

- Hofmann obviously forgot to read the Constitution, which states that the Militia's purpose is to "suppress Insurrections," not foment them.

 

Keep in mind that the Framers of the Constitution had recently won an insurrection.  They likely did not see the issue as so cut and dry.  Jefferson in particular saw the militia as a check on the powers of the government. 

 

Then there’s the issue of who is defending the rule of legitimate law.  There has been a successful insurrection in favor of the actual law in the US as recently as 1946 (Athens, TN).

 

In the foreseeable future, there’s only one issue that might trigger an insurrection:  a serious attempt to disarm the population of the United States.  Indeed, it probably would trigger a very serious one as gun owners take the approach of “use them or lose them”. 

 

IMO, they are jumping the gun (pun intended).  While Obama, like the rest of the Chicago Machine, would certainly love to disarm the population, enough of his people seem to realize that it’s a losing issue at the ballot box and the risk of an uprising is real.

 

It also could be highly effective.  Consider the case of Northern Ireland.  The IRA and its allies and adversaries are very small and face civil liberties obstacles not seen here.  How long have they survived, and occasionally thrived?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bob Costas commentary last week certainly caused quite the stir.  He was actually following the theme of and quoting from a piece written by a reporter after the Belcher murder-suicide.  I think the point was lost on most who automatically reacted negatively after the first few words.  IMO, it very thoughtfully countered the "guns don't kill people... people kill people" meme 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are as useful to me as a drug like heroin/crack/PCP/LSD etc. I have no use for any of these things. Nor do I  understand the attraction of having such destructive things. I don't see that humans have shown the ability to use them responsibly. And as such if guns were made illegal tomorrow, I would not miss them one bit.

 

Sorry, but that list reads like "dynamite/grenade/rocket launcher/unicorn" to anyone who knows a little about pharmacology.

 

Assuming unicorns could possibly hurt you, but don't have a tendency toward violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bob Costas commentary last week certainly caused quite the stir.  He was actually following the theme of and quoting from a piece written by a reporter after the Belcher murder-suicide.  I think the point was lost on most who automatically reacted negatively after the first few words.  IMO, it very thoughtfully countered the "guns don't kill people... people kill people" meme 

Considering Costas's personal and professional association with O. J. Simpson, his claim that not having a gun would have stopped Jovan Belcher from committing murder was somewhat ludicrous.  Indeed, what if Nicole Simpson or Ronald Goldman had been carrying one?  Wrong message, wrong moment, and very much the wrong messenger.  That['s why the stir fizzled out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns make it easier to kill more people in less time. What's the murder rate in nations where guns are tougher to get?


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LSD is not like the others. It is not very dangerous, all things considered.

 

drugtablefullve4.jpg

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125633.100-drugdanger-league-table-revealed.html

 

I was trying to make a joke by having LSD be a totally out of place unicorn. Because, well, it's LSD.

 

Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds - The Beatles

 

Just don't go around talking about X drug being "very dangerous" unless you know the effects of the drug and they are very dangerous. It does a disservice to rationalizing our approach to the drug war, which IMO is an important issue to get right since we spend a lot of money on it and it results in a sh!tton of American citizens being in jail.

 

I'm sorry for going off topic, I will stop now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bob Costas commentary last week certainly caused quite the stir.  He was actually following the theme of and quoting from a piece written by a reporter after the Belcher murder-suicide.  I think the point was lost on most who automatically reacted negatively after the first few words.  IMO, it very thoughtfully countered the "guns don't kill people... people kill people" meme 

Considering Costas's personal and professional association with O. J. Simpson, his claim that not having a gun would have stopped Jovan Belcher from committing murder was somewhat ludicrous.  Indeed, what if Nicole Simpson or Ronald Goldman had been carrying one?  Wrong message, wrong moment, and very much the wrong messenger.  That['s why the stir fizzled out.

 

Given your choice for point of reference, I don't think you understood the commentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord, CNN updated the fatalities to 20, with ten being kids.

 

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/14/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school/

 

Children and adults gunned down in Connecticut school massacre

•There's been a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

•We're told "close to 20" people are dead, including at least 10 children

•Below are the latest updates as they come to us

 

 

The Post is saying the numbers are higher:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/state-police-respond-to-report-of-school-shooting-in-newtown-conn-lockdown-in-place/2012/12/14/df59a9aa-4602-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html?tid=socialss

 

Official with knowledge of Conn. school shooting: 27 dead, including 18 children

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we please get rid of guns now? This is sickening beyond words. These are children. Children!

 

EDIT: I just don't think that humans are responsible enough to have guns so freely. Maybe we were once upon a time, but not anymore.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...