The Republican Party

[DrDea]

Ive grown up around guns.That being said I see no logical reason for anyone to need a silencer or a sawed off shotgun.Neither has a hunting use.Fully auto weapons should be banned except for those that classify as collectors.Again,what possable reason could joe schmo have for wanting to take out an AR15 on full rock and roll hunting?Whos going to control that weapon under those circumstances?I understand the give em an inch and they take a mile philosophy here but there are some things that I feel personaly dont need all that much thought.the above items IMHO serve no usefull purpos in a hunting enviornment.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by DrDea
Ive grown up around guns.That being said I see no logical reason for anyone to need a silencer or a sawed off shotgun.Neither has a hunting use.Fully auto weapons should be banned except for those that classify as collectors.Again,what possable reason could joe schmo have for wanting to take out an AR15 on full rock and roll hunting?Whos going to control that weapon under those circumstances?I understand the give em an inch and they take a mile philosophy here but there are some things that I feel personaly dont need all that much thought.the above items IMHO serve no usefull purpos in a hunting enviornment.

If I loved Full-auto guns that much I would probably join the military, work in law enforcement, or get a collectors permit so I could own them. But that is just me...

[Charon]

Where is the answer to my question on Gatling Guns? Do you think ALL Guns should be legal? Yes or No please.

I can't imagine anything less practical from a criminal or public mayhem standpoint than a gattling gun. It's almost amusing thinking about how you would actually use in a crime. I vote legal.

Just about all guns are legal with the right license in most states (not mine). I think the price is too high because of import restrictions, especially for the advanced background checks etc. But, I do think there are some practical issues without licensing. The move to automatic does advance the ability to lay down suppressive fire as the LA bank robbery shootout shows. The experience in the 1930s supports this as well. If they were cheap enough to be “disposable,” and easily obtainable without a license then I would say reasonable safety issues exist. However, assault rifles were, once, reasonably cheap and widely available and because they lacked automatic fire, their relatively higher cost and lack of concealability didn’t make them particularly attractive to criminals IMO (backed up by the low usage statistics). They were banned, because people who don’t like any gun knew that they could sell the false fear.

The militia, that is exactly what I am talking about. A state militia, not some group of guys who get together in the woods and drink beer and practice being GI Joe. That is what I mean by well-regulated. I see what it says about individuals and guns but I don't know, seems like it could be interpreted in a number of ways. 2nd amendment that is not the DOJ report…

Well-regulated as I interpret it means, the men are well trained and are not a bunch of loners, but part of an organized "state" militia.

What are you basing this on? Please read the 103 page DOJ report covering OUR INDIVIDUAL OR COLLECTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE 2nd AMENDMENT, and 2 or 3 others like it. You can find arguments that take the collective approach, and I’ve gone though them. The ACLU takes this approach (unfortunately), but they don’t really go into detail as to why. However, with the DOJ and several other sources  you can find how people of the day used the terms militia, regulated, etc. in private letters, debates, editorials  and other public statements. They support that ownership is an individual right, IMO, because they dealt with and addressed some of the collective issues (and shortcomings) with “organized” militias as part of the discussion. Basically, have a gun, some training and be ready was about all they could expect from the people.

I just don't think it applies any longer.

Time to amend the constitution then.

I think and this is just my opinion that AWB was put in place to stop 1 Criminal from killing lots of people. Not to stop lots of criminals from killing lots of individuals. 1 bad guy with AW is a helluva lot more dangerous than 10 with pistols. IMO

As a society we allow behaviors that are dangerous to the individual and society. Drinking, tobacco, unsafe types of vehicles, unsafe sports, unsafe social behaviors, private aviation, a range of products that are not safe 100 percent safe, firearm ownership, boat ownership, etc. You can even look at dangerous speech that is protected under the 1st Amendment. The whole human species could be wiped out tomorrow by a meteor in something that might have been preventable with some effort, but nobody cares to address that fundamental risk with any money. There are psychos in the world and occasionally one flips and does something bad. Fact of life. Sarah Brady lists 6 events between 1984 and 1993 that cost a total of 47 lives. Tragic for sure. John Wayne Gacy killed 33 with his bare hands. Timothy McVie 168 with diesel and fertilizer. Arson is responsible for more mass deaths than anything else.

Most of the Weapons used by the Columbine killers were not classed as assault rifles, and the two modified hunting shotguns were far deadlier than the 9mms they had. And if the cops had actually acted instead of hanging out outside, the death toll would likely have been half or less. And for perspective, as I pointed out once before, a Columbine death toll happens every day, 365, from under-age alcohol consumption. Why is it we punish irresponsible and criminal alcohol offenders (every bit as deadly as firearms to society) but want to ban guns? Hypocrisy.

The hard data doesn't support an AWB. Period. Without the emotion, or is religion a better term, you can't logically tell me why an assault weapon is more dangerous to society in a "secular" manner than the average hunting rifle. You are willing to ban this class of weapon, modify one of my Constitutional rights, because you personally don't like it. I haven’t seen anything more substantial to support your opinion.

I am not even gonna read all that because I have been to gun shows and if you have too then you know that all types of "illegal activity" occurs there.

If you refuse to put the effort into this discussion that I do then it's not worth my time to continue it. The above unread material was an example of how anti gun forces can act on the edge or outside the law to harass gun owners.

Charon

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Charon
I can't imagine anything less practical from a criminal or public mayhem standpoint than a gattling gun. It's almost amusing thinking about how you would actually use in a crime. I vote legal.

Just about all guns are legal with the right license in most states (not mine). I think the price is too high because of import restrictions, especially for the advanced background checks etc. But, I do think there are some practical issues without licensing. The move to automatic does advance the ability to lay down suppressive fire as the LA bank robbery shootout shows. The experience in the 1930s supports this as well. If they were cheap enough to be “disposable,” and easily obtainable without a license then I would say reasonable safety issues exist. However, assault rifles were, once, reasonably cheap and widely available and because they lacked automatic fire, their relatively higher cost and lack of concealability didn’t make them particularly attractive to criminals IMO (backed up by the low usage statistics). They were banned, because people who don’t like any gun knew that they could sell the false fear.

 

What are you basing this on? Please read the 103 page DOJ report covering OUR INDIVIDUAL OR COLLECTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE 2nd AMENDMENT, and 2 or 3 others like it. You can find arguments that take the collective approach, and I’ve gone though them. The ACLU takes this approach (unfortunately), but they don’t really go into detail as to why. However, with the DOJ and several other sources  you can find how people of the day used the terms militia, regulated, etc. in private letters, debates, editorials  and other public statements. They support that ownership is an individual right, IMO, because they dealt with and addressed some of the collective issues (and shortcomings) with “organized” militias as part of the discussion. Basically, have a gun, some training and be ready was about all they could expect from the people.



Time to amend the constitution then.



As a society we allow behaviors that are dangerous to the individual and society. Drinking, tobacco, unsafe types of vehicles, unsafe sports, unsafe social behaviors, private aviation, a range of products that are not safe 100 percent safe, firearm ownership, boat ownership, etc. You can even look at dangerous speech that is protected under the 1st Amendment. The whole human species could be wiped out tomorrow by a meteor in something that might have been preventable with some effort, but nobody cares to address that fundamental risk with any money. There are psychos in the world and occasionally one flips and does something bad. Fact of life. Sarah Brady lists 6 events between 1984 and 1993 that cost a total of 47 lives. Tragic for sure. John Wayne Gacy killed 33 with his bare hands. Timothy McVie 168 with diesel and fertilizer. Arson is responsible for more mass deaths than anything else.

Most of the Weapons used by the Columbine killers were not classed as assault rifles, and the two modified hunting shotguns were far deadlier than the 9mms they had. And if the cops had actually acted instead of hanging out outside, the death toll would likely have been half or less. And for perspective, as I pointed out once before, a Columbine death toll happens every day, 365, from under-age alcohol consumption. Why is it we punish irresponsible and criminal alcohol offenders (every bit as deadly as firearms to society) but want to ban guns? Hypocrisy.

The hard data doesn't support an AWB. Period. Without the emotion, or is religion a better term, you can't logically tell me why an assault weapon is more dangerous to society in a "secular" manner than the average hunting rifle. You are willing to ban this class of weapon, modify one of my Constitutional rights, because you personally don't like it. I haven’t seen anything more substantial to support your opinion.

 

If you refuse to put the effort into this discussion that I do then it's not worth my time to continue it. The above unread material was an example of how anti gun forces can act on the edge or outside the law to harass gun owners.

Charon

Terrorism?

Crazy people who are just out to kill others?

No telling how it might be used. The two bank robbers in LA are a good object lesson in why Firepower available to the average citizen should be limited.

There is a saying for all those kinds of things. A few bad apples spoiled fire-arms for the rest by using them in such manners.

Since you brought up mcviegh, They did tighten regulations and rules regarding the purchase of Amonium Fertilizers after his attack.

I dont personally think Assault weapons should be banned. Full auto's though are a different story.

I stand by my militia opinion unless you show me something from the constitutionists that show they meant what you say. A DOJ interpretation means squat.

Dangerous speech is not protected. You can not shout "fire" in a crowded place for example.

Perhaps you care to point me to where I said "I support the Ban on ASW?" Because I never said it. I won't argue a point I did not make.

As for your "article" cough cough that is one highly questionable "fact" I have LexisNexis and Proquest available and I found absolutely nothing besides her application for the gun show. So please don't tell me that I don't put effort in when you use "fake" articles from unreliable sources.

The above unread material is how pro-no-gun-laws people make up lies about the federal government to fuel your paranoia. But if you can find a trustwrothy source, I will be happy to read it.

[Wolf14]

Originally posted by DrDea
Ive grown up around guns.That being said I see no logical reason for anyone to need a silencer or a sawed off shotgun.Neither has a hunting use.Fully auto weapons should be banned except for those that classify as collectors.Again,what possable reason could joe schmo have for wanting to take out an AR15 on full rock and roll hunting?Whos going to control that weapon under those circumstances?I understand the give em an inch and they take a mile philosophy here but there are some things that I feel personaly dont need all that much thought.the above items IMHO serve no usefull purpos in a hunting enviornment.

You see no reason for sawed off shot guns or silencers or other plethera of guns that arent exactly perfect for hunting with?

I'm a Joe Schmoe who takes an AR-15 out hunting. Its not on "full rock and roll" because the AR-15 is a semi- automatic unless its been converted and most have not been.  Now the reason I have an AR-15 first and foremost is for recreational shooting. I dont hunt much and have not a need for a traditional hunting gun. The .223 round is good for small game like hogs and hogs are common to my area, especialy near the creek me and my bud shoot near.

 That .223 round that comes outta the AR-15's barrel is gonna be the same round that comes out of the .223 bolt action at the local pawn shop. The both are fired by a firing pin hitting a centerfire primer. I trigger pull equals one shot.

.223 is alot cheaper round than the .30-.30 or .30-.06 and its alot more pleasent to shoot. For recreation shooting I like to have fun and I can have fun with an AR-15 that I cant have fun with a bolt action. Its a choice I made based on the type of shooting I do. I'm not going to go out and buy two types of guns to keep on hand and when I come accross a hog, I'm not gonna tell him to hold on right there cause I gotta go grab my hunting gun outta the truck cause this here AR-15 isnt a hunting rifle. I'm gonna shoot him with the AR-15. Oh wait I'm a Joe Schmoe out hunting with an AR-15 that serves no useful pupose in a hunting environment. Who woulda thunk it. Better run folks I'm a crazy hog killer with a semi-auto rifle.

To say you see no reason for having something....fine, its your opinion, but dont use that statement as a blanket statement to apply to everybody and thats the way things should be for everybody cause thats what works for you.

Its all about choices. We have a right and privelage to own what we own for what reasons we own it. The ones who get out of hand with things are dealt with by the law.

There are people getting mugged because of the shoes they wear. If you have shoes that cost $50- $100 get rid of them. I see no reason why these shoes should be allowed to be worn outside a gym/ sportscenter environment.

Given enough time the Dems will be tellin you what shoe to buy because they know whats best for you.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Raider179
... I have LexisNexis and Proquest available and...

How much are you paying for LexisNexis? I've tried to get their subscription info but you have to call them to get that.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Nash
How much are you paying for LexisNexis? I've tried to get their subscription info but you have to call them to get that.

Free through School Even have off-campus access to it.

[Nash]

You go to school?

With those.... those... those ... university professors and everything?

I bet you have restless sleeping patterns on top of it!

Well that explains everything.

[Raider179]

Yeah been going off and on for 8 years. Sleep pretty good though lol Booze helps!

[DrDea]

You can have an AR 15.I like em personaly.just see no reason for them to be full auto.

[Charon]

Terrorism?

Crazy people who are just out to kill others?

No telling how it might be used. The two bank robbers in LA are a good object lesson in why Firepower available to the average citizen should be limited.

Are you serious? A 600 lb horse drawn carriage weapon popular in the Spanish American War with a low rate of fire, no concealability or mobility? A terrorist would be better off punching the gas and heading up a crowded sidewalk in a Buick.

Perhaps you care to point me to where I said "I support the Ban on ASW?" Because I never said it. I won't argue a point I did not make.

That sounds just like Bush with: “I never said Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11." Technically true.

I think and this is just my opinion that AWB was put in place to stop 1 Criminal from killing lots of people. Not to stop lots of criminals from killing lots of individuals. 1 bad guy with AW is a helluva lot more dangerous than 10 with pistols. IMO

* Assault weapons were "already out of the way" and nothing of the sort you mention occured. As for why they are/were banned, you have to draw the line somewhere.

I don't know how I could have gotten so confused, I apologize.

I stand by my militia opinion unless you show me something from the constitutionists that show they meant what you say. A DOJ interpretation means squat.

Why must I do all the work? That opinion thing is a real time saver. This one is the most direct to my statement: In The Federalist No. 29, first published in the New York Independent Journal on January 9, 1788:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped [edit: note the lack of: trained, drilled, organized, practiced, etc.]; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

[edit: We’ve obviously neglected this responsibility ]

It is interesting. There was a significant debate during the drafting of the Constitution on defense and militias (general vs. select [a NG structure] vs. standing army). Here is this general (of the people) militia argument:

[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
         ---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Standing army won out, and from what I can tell a general militia. In the war of 1812 militias were formed under appointed commanders, and performed well on defense (New Orleans) and poorly on offense (Canada. Didn’t much care to travel too far from homes).

One constant, outside of defense and protection, is a general referencing of firearms in society as natural part of life. Here is one of many examples that can be found:

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
        --- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

Maybe they didn’t feel the need to be more specific about individual rights at the time. Too bad.

As for your "article" cough cough that is one highly questionable "fact" I have LexisNexis and Proquest available and I found absolutely nothing besides her application for the gun show. So please don't tell me that I don't put effort in when you use "fake" articles from unreliable sources.

The above unread material is how pro-no-gun-laws people make up lies about the federal government to fuel your paranoia. But if you can find a trustwrothy source, I will be happy to read it.

I am not surprised it didn’t make it into more mainstream press, since most editors would not find it all that newsworthy. Maybe the local weekly. I don’t much like the source and usually find myself arguing against it. But even though they can editorialize on some tangents, I’ve never seen them outright fabricate anything. And man, that was spoke just like a Bushie when presented with an anti-Iraq article in the NewYorker. Again, I’ve wasted enough time on this and it isn’t the first time. Out.

Charon

[Raider179]

I will have to read up on the federalist papers before I can get into this debate. From what you have quoted I would agree with you on the militia part...See ya next time

[lazs2]

I see... now raider agrees that the constitution guarentees the right of anyone of militia age (16) to own any firearm and  not be restricted as to his right to keep and bear it?  but that the concept of bad governments from within or without or even a criminal attacking us is so far out of the realm of reality that it is..... outdated?   is not free speech outdated too? some speech causes harm or makes fun of or hurts our benevolent and altruistic government... pehaps we should look at free speech too?

dr dea... I don't hunt... the constitution said nothing about hunting unless you mean hunting tyrants and criminals... in that case a sawed off shotgun or silencer would be useful   both were used in wars.

As for gangs running around with machine guns... LOL... the doom prediction is laughable... sorta like all the raider like wussies all claimed that concealled carry would result in gunfights at every fender bender....  Iam sure that in israel there are no gangs machinegunning people.... In the army we have thousands and thousands of hotheaded teens and older in iraq carrying machine guns and they don't seem to be murdering each other... how do you explain that exactly?

How do you explain that those who carry guns are the most law abiding and least violent sector and that those places that allow concealled carry have a drop ijn crime?

If you are defending democrats based on "sensible" gun laws and reviling republicans based on defending the second amendment.....

Then you have made my case for me kid.   I am just trying to keep you out of my life.


oh... and I don't care what you think "well regulated" means... at the time the document was written well regulated meant well equipped.
lazs

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
I see... now raider agrees that the constitution guarentees the right of anyone of militia age (16) to own any firearm and  not be restricted as to his right to keep and bear it?  but that the concept of bad governments from within or without or even a criminal attacking us is so far out of the realm of reality that it is..... outdated?   is not free speech outdated too? some speech causes harm or makes fun of or hurts our benevolent and altruistic government... pehaps we should look at free speech too?


As for gangs running around with machine guns... LOL... the doom prediction is laughable... sorta like all the raider like wussies all claimed that concealled carry would result in gunfights at every fender bender....  Iam sure that in israel there are no gangs machinegunning people.... In the army we have thousands and thousands of hotheaded teens and older in iraq carrying machine guns and they don't seem to be murdering each other... how do you explain that exactly?

How do you explain that those who carry guns are the most law abiding and least violent sector and that those places that allow concealled carry have a drop ijn crime?

If you are defending democrats based on "sensible" gun laws and reviling republicans based on defending the second amendment.....

Then you have made my case for me kid.   I am just trying to keep you out of my life.


oh... and I don't care what you think "well regulated" means... at the time the document was written well regulated meant well equipped.
lazs

Woah woah woah slow down boss. lol

I didnt say without restrtictions. I said i agreed with his take on the Militia not having to be a state militia.

I also said the concept of the government getting all uppity is outdated. Nor do I think we will ever be attacked by anyone during which we will need all you gun guys to form your "militia's" to protect us. I further feel that if some bad stuff did go down most of you who claim to hold the 2nd in such high esteem, would probably turn and take off for the mountains, forgetting all about the Militia.

Whats funny is you calling me a wussy when I walk this planet with no fire-arm. I bet you have two or three on you right now. I don't need a gun for protection and I am not scared without one. You on the other hand are scared of all kinds of things and that is why you carry guns.

Lasz I know you did not just compare our Troops in Iraq with Gang members. Tell me you did not do that...

People commit crimes with guns everyday. To say they are the most law-abiding is retarded. Oh you mean the ones who carry guns who don't use them for crimes are the most law abiding.

Whatever pops.

[lazs2]

raider... First of all... you started out giving a defenition of the second amendment that was wrong... we here corrected you but then you would pick another part of it to prove your point and be wrong about that too... now you appear to have recanted all your previous defenitions but have changed your tactic to... "well... the constitution is outdated" line of reasoning.   I do not believe that it is "outdated" and do not belive that governments or people in general have changed much.  
Otherwise... why have any amendments?   why the need to guarentee free speech for innstance?

You then claim that those who are armed are the frieghtened ones and those making bans of firearms are the brave civic minded ones.   this puzzles me.  I know that you are probly a big bad bellybutton guy but... if there is a violent person commiting a crime... Iwant one of the citizens there to be armed ... I don't hold out much faith that you will be any use to the rest of us in your unarmed state.  To me... it is the armed person who is the civic minded one... we are armed because you are not skilled or smart or brave enough to be.

as for gangs....If you are so frieghtened of gangs (like you are of your neighbors
and them being armed)... bad news... they allready are and.. they are breaking laws to do it... disarming your neighbors isn't gonna help you in the least....

 if you are so scared of gangs then the real solution would be to allow any citizen to be armed....just like the constitution  demands... and then any non citizen or criminal that is in possesion of a gun... the law could read... "any armed person not a citizen of the country would face an automatic death penalty or life in prison"...  

If gangs are such a big problem then lets deal with it instead of using em as a boogey man to restrict citizens rights..

My reference to the military was that they are ordinary citizens drawn from the population and carrying full auto weapons of the latest design and under their sole control... it appears that they are not butchering each other over the arguements and such that crop up... it does not appear that allowing them all to carry firearms in an allmost urestericted manner is causeing them to turn into a pack of bloodthirsty maniacs.

perhaps you feel that gang members are not really humans tho?

to recap.. you have changed your mind at least twice as to what the 2nd says..  now you seem to think that the second condones restrictions other than being old enough to be in a militia...  Where does the second condone restrictions?  We are not talking about what you would like or accept  here... we are talking about what the document says.

lazs