Mass shootings at New Zealand mosques...

[Roy]

It sure would be.

Your post was unacceptable.

[lilpixieofterror]

The second amendment was written in a time when it took over a minute to reload a single shot rifle! How many people do you suppose a shooter wandering into a school could kill with the most advanced rifle of the time before he was subdued? In the end the cost of that potential (and marginal) protection from invasion in this day and age is far too high.

Just have a mandatory service requirement in the actual armed services if you goal is a backdoor public militia. Our society and our technology is not what it was when the 2nd amendment was written. There are a large number of reasons it would have been more reasonable then than it is now. Not the least of which is general psychological make up of the population itself. Too little hard work, too much play, too much idle time, too little respect for time honored moral principles have made us far less of a stable society.

As I pointed out above, technology advances is something they understood too.

Out of curiosity, how do you plan to reduce the number of felons or mentally unstable people with access to guns without changing and making more restrictive the current set of gun laws?

Better security sounds like a good start.

[lilpixieofterror]

No, you just missed the connection, which was the rather obvious implication in your arguent that increased screening and training of gun owners would somehow reduce our capability to have guns for self-defense. My comment was simply, 'It ain't necessarily so!' There is no reason to assume that keeping guns out of the hands of felons or the mentally unstable would reduce the capacity of responsible, sane people to own a gun for self-defense - if they felt they needed it. It just might make the initial gun purchase take a little while longer.

You don't need an AR15 for self-defense, a pump action shotgun would do just as well, and probably be more likely to actually be effective. And you don't have to worry about the ammo you fire that misses going another 2 miles and killing some kid on his porch. And you don't have to be nearly as good an aim. And the crazies definitely don't need access to an AR15. The potential for mass casualty it just too high to be worth the risk. So while I don't know if an out and out ban is necessary, the bar should be fairly high to obtain it - and keep it.

[rogue06]

The second amendment was written in a time when it took over a minute to reload a single shot rifle!
Jim

And the first amendment was written when only hand operated printing presses constituted mass communication. So I guess things like phones, typewriters, computers, TV and radio aren't covered since they weren't around at the time.

As noted previously:

This crap has been pounded into a fine pink mist over and over again and again and trotting it out yet again will not change that fact. For instance:

As I've repeatedly noted in previous threads the Founding Fathers also had no conception of TV, radio, telephones or the internet but nobody would seriously argue that they shouldn't be covered by the First Amendment.

And they didn't conceive of houses built with modern building materials complete with indoor toilets, electricity, air conditioning and central heating but nobody would seriously maintain that such structures aren't covered by the Fourth Amendment's provision against unlawful searches.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35804[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]35805[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]35806[/ATTACH]

The whole they only had muskets back then nonsense has repeatedly been beaten into a fine pink mist several times so please do try to keep up. Rifles had been around for a hundred years or so before the 2A was penned. In fact during the Revolutionary War the Continental Congress authorized the establishment of ten companies of riflemen.

Furthermore, there was an assortment of repeating and/or high capacity firearms available in 1787 (when the Constitution was written) and even well before that. Sparko posted a list of some:

btw, muskets were not the only weapons available at the time the second amendment was written.

Behold the the assault rifles of the time,

https://www.nrablog.com/articles/201...t-musket-myth/

At least one of them existed nearly 140 years prior to the Constitution. Moreover that list is hardly exhaustive and some were around before the dates given (the earliest Cookson repeating flintlock rifle dates to 1690 for instance).

There was the 32mm Puckle gun patented in 1718 by James Puckle over 7 decades before the Second Amendment. It was a flintlock revolver that was the first firearm to be designated a "machine gun."

There was the high capacity Girandoni air rifle invented in 1779 which had a magazine holding twenty .46 caliber projectiles with an effective range of 150 yards similar to the range of a musket. Lewis and Clark took them on their journey and praised them as being their most effective tool on their cross continental trek.

There was the Kalthoff repeater which was used in the Siege of Copenhagen (1659) during the Second Northern War and remained unmatched in its fire rate until the mid-19th century being capable of firing every couple of seconds. Oops. That's on Sparko's list

There was also the a 40-Bore Flintlock 8-shot repeating magazine Pistol manufactured in the first half of the 1790s but used a system invented around 1660.

Further, "volley guns" which fire a number of shots, either simultaneously or in succession, date back to Medieval times when they were called "organ guns" or a "Ribauldequin." The Nock gun mentioned by Sparko is a type of volley gun. Another type is the "duck's foot" handgun (see below) designed for facing multiple hostile opponents charging in at you (it was a favorite of prison guards and sea captains facing a mutinous crew).

00000000000000ab000-01bb3.jpg
This 4 barreled .52 caliber flintlock pistol dates from c. 1780
With it's 2" long barrels it was made for concealability

00000000000000ab000-01bb3a.jpg
Talk about your "assault weapon" this 8-barreled flintlock
also sported a spiked butt and a barbed blade for use
after all the rounds have been fired.

[Mountain Man]

Simply opening a jacket to reveal a holstered handgun, chambering a round into a pump 12 gauge shotgun or pointing a handgun at someone armed with a knife or the like can and has deterred the violent intent of many a criminal assailant.

I once stopped for gas in a rough area of town and after getting out of my car was approached by two young black men. One hung back surveying the perimeter while the other quickly walked towards me casually asking if he could "borrow" some money. The only thing I had on me was a small flashlight, and I figured that in a worst case scenario, I could shine it in his eyes as a momentary distraction and beat a retreat into the nearby convenience store, and so I simply placed my right hand near my pocket where I kept the flashlight and didn't say a word. As soon as I took that posture, the young man walking towards me immediately checked his step and said, "Yo, man, it's not like that! It's not like that!" and he and his companion ran off. I am of the firm opinion that their belief that I was armed saved my skin that night.

[Mountain Man]

I fail to see the difference in your analogy. I mean, even if people didn't panic and stampede, you'd probably be looking at some consequences just based on the potential harm of your actions.

"Potential harm" ... exactly. It's not the words themselves that should be regulated but rather their affect.

Source: It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

[The Supreme Court] held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis in the original article. -MM).

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...-quote/264449/

© Copyright Original Source

There is too much irresponsible and criminal gun use. There are other ways to kill of course. But the other ways available to a normal US citizen are not nearly so easy, nearly so fast, or nearly so distant. Guns, and especially guns with the power and speed of something like an AR15 give a single person way too much power, and only those that have proven they are worthy of that power should be granted access to it.

So you punish the criminals and irresponsible gun owners. You don't infringe on the basic rights of honest, law abiding citizens.

What's next? Speech licenses to be issued to "only those that have proven they are worthy of that power [and] should be granted access to it"?

[Littlejoe]

You don't need an AR15 for self-defense, a pump action shotgun would do just as well, and probably be more likely to actually be effective. And you don't have to worry about the ammo you fire that misses going another 2 miles and killing some kid on his porch. And you don't have to be nearly as good an aim. And the crazies definitely don't need access to an AR15. The potential for mass casualty it just too high to be worth the risk. So while I don't know if an out and out ban is necessary, the bar should be fairly high to obtain it - and keep it.


Jim

My sister successfully used an AR15 to thwart a home invasion of 2 large men who kicked in her door after my Brother In Law had left for work. She used the AR because it IS light, easy to handle and she's a dead shot with it. She is small and a pump shotgun is a lot to handle for her. I hunt with 8 guys in a hunting group. 6 of us have an AR the we hunt with.

And, you just admitted that a pump shotgun was more effective than an AR but only want to ban the AR? IIRC there are shotguns that will hold up to 25 shells in a drum mag. And since a shotgun is devastating at close range, (you can shoot multiple people in a close crowd with a single shot.

In fact, I once served on a jury of a Manslaughter case where a man was shot in the thigh at close range with bird shot, he bled out from a shredded femoral artery before they could get him to the hospital(and the paramedics arrived within minutes <4 I think> of the shooting). So, your rail against AR's seems to be much ado about nothing....

[Mountain Man]

But- but they look scary! And "AR" stands for "assault rifle"! Right? Right?

(Actually, "AR" refers to the manufacturer. Not to mention that the "assault weapon" designation is meaningless anyway. Nobody who makes or uses guns even recognizes it as a valid category.)

[Sparko]

The second amendment was written in a time when it took over a minute to reload a single shot rifle! How many people do you suppose a shooter wandering into a school could kill with the most advanced rifle of the time before he was subdued? In the end the cost of that potential (and marginal) protection from invasion in this day and age is far too high.

Sorry but could you please restrict your free speech to parchment and quill? The fact that you can reach millions of people using the internet to spread your views was never the intention of the founders. They expected people to express their opinions in person or using letters.

Out of curiosity, how do you plan to reduce the number of felons or mentally unstable people with access to guns without changing and making more restrictive the current set of gun laws?


Jim

Um we do background checks already and restrict those people from having guns. Exactly what restrictions would you make to do something we are already doing?

Do you think felons who want guns get them legally now? They don't. And unless you have some record of mental illness how do you expect any laws to catch that?

[Sparko]

No, you just missed the connection, which was the rather obvious implication in your arguent that increased screening and training of gun owners would somehow reduce our capability to have guns for self-defense. My comment was simply, 'It ain't necessarily so!' There is no reason to assume that keeping guns out of the hands of felons or the mentally unstable would reduce the capacity of responsible, sane people to own a gun for self-defense - if they felt they needed it. It just might make the initial gun purchase take a little while longer.



You don't need an AR15 for self-defense, a pump action shotgun would do just as well, and probably be more likely to actually be effective. And you don't have to worry about the ammo you fire that misses going another 2 miles and killing some kid on his porch. And you don't have to be nearly as good an aim. And the crazies definitely don't need access to an AR15. The potential for mass casualty it just too high to be worth the risk. So while I don't know if an out and out ban is necessary, the bar should be fairly high to obtain it - and keep it.


Jim

Why do you think it is up to someone like you to tell me what I "need" for self-defense? This is a free country and I have the right to defend myself using any means I wish. If I think an AR-15 is better for me then who are you to tell me no?
Maybe I don't want to have my living room covered in brains and guts from using a shotgun. Maybe I am worried about more than one attacker. Maybe I just like the fact that an AR15 doesn't kick as much as a shotgun.

[Sparko]

Your post was unacceptable.

Thank you Mr. Nanny.

[Sparko]

Meanwhile in Missouri:

Missouri Senate Bans All Federal Gun Control Laws in Proposed Billhttp://thesentinel.net/politics/miss...in-23-10-vote/

[rogue06]

Out of curiosity, how do you plan to reduce the number of felons or mentally unstable people with access to guns without changing and making more restrictive the current set of gun laws?

Um we do background checks already and restrict those people from having guns. Exactly what restrictions would you make to do something we are already doing?

One of the biggest problems has been that the government doesn't want to enforce the laws on the books but rather keeps demanding tougher restrictions.

For instance take a look at background checks.

Since firearms dealers ask prospective buyers about prior convictions and the like even before they give them ATF Form 4473 to fill out (which starts the FBI check) and because the vast majority of those applicants who don't pass are rejected because of a prior criminal conviction, restraining order, are fugitives and the like, this actually qualifies as a federal crime -- a felony -- of submitting false information.

But, in one recent year of the approximately 80,000 people who were turned down as a result of a background check only 44 people were prosecuted. 44 out of 80,000.

In the first two years after the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was first set up the Justice Department Inspector General discovered that only 154 people out of 120,000 denials were prosecuted.

Why isn't the government enforcing the laws already on the books rather than wanting new ones? Now, I'm sure a significant portion of those who are rejected didn't realize that they were violating the law (perhaps they didn't realize that their conviction was for a felony or that it happened so long ago that they "forgot") but that can hardly account for such a low prosecution rate.

One explanation was provided by then Vice President Joe Biden when he was asked about this in 2013 while talking to representatives from the National Rifle Association during a White House gun violence task force meeting. According to Jim Baker, the NRA's Director of Federal Affairs, Biden responded, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."

And it appears that, according to Justice Department data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University (widely regarded as one of the best researchers on federal prosecution performances and trends), federal prosecutions of firearm violations in general dropped substantially during the Obama Administration^[1]. This was verified by a study conducted by the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys which found that there has been a 25% drop in the number of prosecutions of firearm violation cases by the Justice Department recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) than the Bush Administration did.

So before we start passing new laws does it not seem reasonable that we actually start enforcing the laws we already have on the books and begin prosecuting those who willfully lie on federal forms trying to illegally obtain firearms?

As an aside I should note that the Democrats recently defeated an amendment to the proposed Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 (H.R. 8) that alert law enforcement authorities when gun buyers fail the background check. Why? Because the provision would also check to see if the person trying to obtain a firearm was an illegal immigrant and if they were inform Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about the illegal act (it's already a violation of federal law for illegals to purchase or possess firearms). It should also be noted that the amendment was based on language introduced by two House Democrats, David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is now chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. And yet both of them voted against the amendment^[2].

So much for the left's claim that they want to keep guns out of the wrong hands.






1. A similar thing happened during the Clinton Administration. After working so hard to pass the Brady Law and the the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (which prohibited firearms based on their appearance rather than functionality) in 1993 and 1994 respectively of the 23,000 cases that had been referred for prosecution by the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives only arrested 56 people. One of Janet Reno's top aides even testified that they weren't all that interested in such prosecutions (enforcing the laws just passed). They appeared more interested in passing even more laws (which they would likely not enforce either).

2. Later, after the amendment was rejected Republicans employed an obscure rule called "motion to recommit," which allows the minority party to submit last-minute introductions of floor amendments and re-introduced the amendment and it managed to slip through. So how did the House Democratic leadership respond upon discovering this? They are now considering whether they should amend the rules to eliminate motions to recommit.

[rogue06]

But- but they look scary! And "AR" stands for "assault rifle"! Right? Right?

(Actually, "AR" refers to the manufacturer. Not to mention that the "assault weapon" designation is meaningless anyway. Nobody who makes or uses guns even recognizes it as a valid category.)

The whole "Assault Weapon Ban" that took place during the Clinton Administration and with which the left is still so enamoured had absolutely nothing whatsoever to so with the functionality or lethalness of the firearms it proscribed but was instead based solely on their appearance.

That's right, "Assault Weapon" is a wholly fabricated term that was based upon cosmetic appearance.

Senator Feinstein (D-Cal.) and a couple of her staffers essentially thumbed through a firearm catalog and selected any gun that "looked" scary to them^[1]. This included things like having a plastic rather than wooden stock, being black instead of brown and having a bayonet lug.

So to absolutely nobody's surprise (except the gun-grabbers on the left and in the MSM^[2]) the manufacturers simply made a few cosmetic changes to get around the laws thus merely changing the color and removing a bayonet lug magically transformed them into "not an 'assault weapon'."

Thus, even the staunchly anti-gun Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence groused, "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced."

Likewise, the liberal SalonLos Angeles Times (again hardly a bastion of conservative thought and not a supporter of the Second Amendment) also complained that the ban was a joke because it "focused on cosmetics" like flash suppressors and bayonet attachments.






1. This was why it included a pistol that could only hold a single round that after discharging you literally have to break open the firearm from which you had to manually extract the casing (although a few of the newest models included an ejector), put in another round and then close the firearm before it can be fired again. Yeah, a real "assault weapon" there

00000000000000ab000-01bb.jpg
Scary-looking illegal version of the
single-shot Thompson Contender


00000000000000ab000-01bb1.jpg
Completely legal version with absolutely
no functional difference whatsoever

2. Increasingly a distinction without a difference

[seer]

Meanwhile in Missouri:

Missouri Senate Bans All Federal Gun Control Laws in Proposed Bill

So a sanctuary state - like for illegals. The Libs should love that...