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