Assault Weapons?

[Iceaxe]

clarification: my post refers only to a U.S. ban.

The only way I'm giving up my guns is bullets first. If you want them, come and get them.

At some point in time with any ban that actually removes guns from the street you will have to find someone willing to physically enter homes and confiscate them... good luck with that.

Sent using Tapatalk

[rockgremlin]

clarification: my post refers only to a U.S. ban.

Ah. Still....bad guys are very adept at smuggling. In my opinion they would all have to go the way of the Dodo in order to be completely banned. And that's a tall order.

And just to throw in a little moderation...I wonder if when the constitution was written there existed assault rifles (I know, I know - asenine scenario), that the founding fathers would still have granted the general populace access to them?

Discuss.

[rockgremlin]

At some point in time with any ban that actually removes guns from the street you will have to find someone willing to physically enter homes and confiscate them... good luck with that.

That's been my stance all along. They can ban them, but it's going to take a door-to-door campaign to completely eradicate them all. And that will never happen.

And then there's that issue about AW getting smuggled in over borders, yada yada yada....I'd sooner believe in Santa Claus as believe in a complete AW ban.

[oldno7]

And just to throw in a little moderation...I wonder if when the constitution was written there existed assault rifles (I know, I know - asenine scenario), that the founding fathers would still have granted the general populace access to them?

Discuss.

So, to go there--lets go here.
First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Certainly at the time of the BOR, when long distance communication was via horseback and a "press" was a mechanical device one inserted block letters into, they knew of landlines, cell phones, ipads, computers, etc, Right?

That argument has never held.

[Iceaxe]

And just to throw in a little moderation...I wonder if when the constitution was written there existed assault rifles (I know, I know - asenine scenario), that the founding fathers would still have granted the general populace access to them?

Assault rifles were in existence when the Constitution was written, but at the time they were called muskets. But just to be clear, they were the same type of firearm used by every modern army on the planet at the time.

[hank moon]

That's been my stance all along. They can ban them, but it's going to take a door-to-door campaign to completely eradicate them all. And that will never happen.

And then there's that issue about AW getting smuggled in over borders, yada yada yada....I'd sooner believe in Santa Claus as believe in a complete AW ban.

Some things take time...and the goal of moderate gun control is not to "completely eradicate" anything. That is impossible. Nor is the goal to "take away" anything (as previously discussed). It would be helpful if we didn't have to rehash the same points every couple of days. Progress is made by agreeing on certain fundamentals and moving from there. Can we agree that we don't need to talk about:

1) The gov't physically "taking away" guns from existing owners (i.e. 'pry from cold dead fingers'). There is no rational basis for such belief. I think some use it to avoid and/or end discussion. A kind of strawman variant.
2) Gun control that attempts to immediately solve some problem that clearly has no quick solution. Some things take time.
3) Impossible absolutes such as complete eradication of some type of gun. We still have black powder weapons and enthusiasts. Always will*.

What say you?

[hank moon]

Assault rifles were in existence when the Constitution was written, but at the time they were called muskets. But just to be clear, they were the same type of firearm used by every modern army on the planet at the time.

Yes, things were then a bit more equal, then. But...weapons technology aside, one of the biggest changes that might influence a "we the people armed with AR-15s" vs. "them the gov't armed with drones, tanks, and nukes" is a world that holds different expectations from those of 200-odd years ago. In a purely physical contest between "organized militia" and Uncle Sam, the latter would clearly prevail. It is only the more civilized expectations of the civilized world that would save the poor freedom fighters from rapid extinction. That, and Twitter.

[rockgremlin]

Some things take time...and the goal of moderate gun control is not to "completely eradicate" anything. That is impossible. Nor is the goal to "take away" anything (as previously discussed). It would be helpful if we didn't have to rehash the same points every couple of days. Progress is made by agreeing on certain fundamentals and moving from there. Can we agree that we don't need to talk about:

1) The gov't physically "taking away" guns from existing owners (i.e. 'pry from cold dead fingers'). There is no rational basis for such belief. I think some use it to avoid and/or end discussion. A kind of strawman variant.
2) Gun control that attempts to immediately solve some problem that clearly has no quick solution. Some things take time.
3) Impossible absolutes such as complete eradication of some type of gun. We still have black powder weapons and enthusiasts. Always will*.

What say you?

I think this is a reasonable stance. I can agree with those points.

My apologies for rehashing some above points. I fell out of the discussion for a little while and just rejoined the discussion today,

[Iceaxe]

Some things take time...and the goal of moderate gun control is not to "completely eradicate" anything. That is impossible. Nor is the goal to "take away" anything

I disagree.... gun control as being discussed by Congress takes away part of my rights given to me under the 2nd amendment. I don't intend to give away any of those rights, or the rights of future generations without a fight... and I'm not alone.

And I disagree with your version of extinction of the freedom fighter.... it doesn't matter how many tanks and planes you have... so long as the citizens of the US are armed they can never be defeated if they chose to fight. As I mentioned before. The most feared weapon on the battlefield is still the lone soldier with a high powered rifle.



Sent using Tapatalk

[Byron]

I keep waiting for the "rational discussion" to begin. On one side, you have folks like me...champions of the 2nd, and on the other, you have folks that want to "do SOMETHING". O.K., do what?

Limit mags? Ban any gun that goes "rat, tat tat?" Those two things are all I'm hearing, and neither is going to happen. Even if no one owned a gun that could fire no more that 6 rounds at a time before reloading, those ate up dudes will still take people out. Some guy with two revolvers corners 10 people...the result is a mass shooting.

The best solution is obvious to me...arm yourself. That's it, end of discussion. It's like this:

"Byron, we need to have a discussion about gun control"
"No, we don't"
"But you're being unreasonable"
"No, I'm not"

They may as well have a debate with a brick wall. You wanna talk? O.K., come up with a way to head guys like Lanza off at the pass and you'll get my attention.

[Iceaxe]

^^^THIS^^^

Tell me a way to stop criminals for using guns illegally and I'm all ears.



You are never going to be able to put the gun genie back in the bottle.

[oldno7]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!!!

The Amendments to the constitution GUARANTEE RIGHTS of the people!!!

[oldno7]

No where does it say these amendments are good ideas--It states they are RIGHTS of the people.

[oldno7]

Lets make this easy--

I suggest we round up ALL gays/muslims/mentally ill, and send them to Guantanamo--Then in 100 years, this country will be better.

[Brian in SLC]

Ahhh..but for those first three words in the 2nd Amendment...

"A well regulated..."

Better access to better mental health care would help.

One does wonder about "regulating" though. I'm not afraid of my government. I wouldn't hunt with an "assault weapon".

Be interesting to see with the folks come up with. After all, its a "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

Power to the people!

[Iceaxe]

Ahhh..but for those first three words in the 2nd Amendment...

"A well regulated..."

That is an old issue used by the anti-gun crowd in an attempt to regulate firearms. That isssue has now been resolved.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

[oldno7]

First I've seen this....And it's from nbc

[oldno7]

hmmm--can't find any further documentation of the video.

Was it a voice over?

I would think breaking news of that caliber would be everywhere.

[Glockguy]

There have been some strange instances with this event. I am not willing to put on the tin foil yet, but wish they could release more facts.

There is a video of LE at night taking what is clearly a Saiga 12 gauge shotgun out of the trunk. The LEO removes the fat magazine and ejects a red 12 gauge shell. These shotguns look a lot like an AK-47. I have not heard any mention of the Saiga.

[Iceaxe]

I Agree.... I would not put away the tin foil hat for a long time.

From the Sandy Hooks Thread.

A couple other things I learned after reading the book Columbine.... don't believe one word that comes out of any cops mouth, the cops lied about what really happened at Columbine for several years, even going as far as destroying evidence that made them look bad.... and the reporters were even worse.

Here is the book if anyone is interested, its a good read:
http://www.amazon.com/Columbine-Dave.../dp/0446546925