Gun Control needs to be instituted

its a term he throws out without having any concept of what it means. Yep, in England I three times had 6 dead partridge in the air at the same time courtesy of being a world class wing shot and a loader who was at the top of the stack when it came to loading my pair of Ruger Red Labels. Of course I only tried the highest birds

 

Lucky's comment about limiting the number of weapons one can own is interesting. I wonder if he/she/it would be ok if we said you can vote ten times in your life? Just ten... no more.

 

or two abortions per female?

 

do you even know what an Assault rifle is and that none made after May 19, 1986 can be owned by private citizens

that no American using a legally possessed assault rifle has ever murdered another American citizen

 

Lucky apparently stated on another thread that he is leaving this board for good. Apparently he didn't like his rather specious (IMHO) arguments getting screwed blued and tattooed by all us "right wing extremists"

 

I'd love to know what an "assault rifle" is. 50 states have 50 definitions and all are different than the military one.

 

Why do you hate the Constitution?

 

I've never seen a state definition for "assault rifle".

 

TMK, the term has no legal definition.

 

the military definition-ie a carbine useful for assaulting fixed positions, has to have select fire capabilities

 

By 'assault rifle' I was referring specifically to fully auto capable rifles, but since I'm not a gun nut I was not aware of the 1986 Act. I also wasn't aware that the AR-15 was not a full auto. But wouldn't it be possible to modify the AR-15 or similar rifle (illegally) to be selective fire capable?

However, with a large enough magazine load, would it really matter much if someone wanted to go on a shooting spree?

True. Then we should, as a minimum, restrict magazine capacity I'd say - because look what happened during the North Hollywood bank robbery & shootout in 1997. They used full autos (among other weapons), but with high capacity magazines. It's amazing no one (other than the suspects died), with 12 cops and 8 civilians being injured. Plus, the assailants in some of the mass shootings used high capacity magazines in their semi-autos.

 

Why are you so paranoid? If you're so scared of your evil govt, then stop putting corrupt people in power.

 

1: Violates the constitution
2: When you're the only one shooting, it doesn't matter how many times you reload (See: Pulse Nighclub, Orlando)

 

You tell me you want to:
* ban all guns within city limits (okay only outside of city)
* no concealed gun carry
* outlaw NRA lobbying & donations to public/elected officials

Then you ask:
Why are you so paranoid?



I ask again:
Why do you hate the Constitution?

 

How am I paranoid? If I was paranoid I'd want a gun. I personally don't care if people have/use guns or have/use drugs. I don't have a gun and am not afraid of either the govt or criminals. I'm just putting in my two cents regarding the mass shootings - not on gun crimes in general. We do need at least a temporary solution (perhaps city-wide bans), because Americans seem to lack self restraint and are acting like children.

I don't 'hate' it. It's just VERY outdated & doesn't serve our needs today, just as the electoral college which served the interests of slave owners is outdated. To understand the 2nd Amendment you have to look at context. Times have changed. The militias have been replaced by a national defense.

 

That's a matter of interpretation. We don't live in the 18th Century anymore.

It does to the cops who are trying to put down the shooter, and those who are trying to escape.

 

Read that again.

Amend it
Until then, you don't get to ignore it.

 

And that interpretation, since 2008, has been very clear.
When a magazine ban finally makes it before the USSC, it will be struck -- assuming all such bans are not first struck by the circuits.

It's almost as if you chose to not read what I said.

 

You were calling ME paranoid. I was talking about an issue with mass shootings - which has nothing to do with ME being paranoid.

Doesn't need to be amended because most people aren't calling to ban all guns.

As far as the Constitution, it's how the Supreme Court decides to interpret it.

You have to take into consideration context. For example:

The Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Many historians agree that the primary reason for passing the Second Amendment was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html

Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee the Right To Own a Gun
Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Warren Burger argues that the sale, purchase, and use of guns should be regulated just as automobiles and boats are regulated; such regulations would not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-l...-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99

And, I would add:

Guns were important to slave owners because they were outnumbered and is how they kept their slaves in line. They were also important to frontiersmen who wanted to protect themselves against potentially hostile natives and other frontiersmen, bandits, etc. There were more hunters in those days as well, so they wanted/needed guns. Frontier towns could also be dangerous places, so people needed protection.

 

Then whatever that 'interpretation' is, that's what we as Americans have to deal with - until the next 'interpretation.'

Proof that Americans have not yet matured & corruption is still well tolerated. The NRA gun lobby & gun industry really has politicians in their pockets.

You said "When you're the only one shooting..."

It would appear that you didn't understand what I just said.

 

Read it AGAIN.... for comprehension.
Hint: It was my response to you asking me why I was paranoid.

It does if you want to
* ban all guns within city limits (okay only outside of city)
* no concealed gun carry
* outlaw NRA lobbying & donations to public/elected officials
* Restrict magazine size.

Indeed.

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

“The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding

"The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense"

"when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

Why do these interpretations lead you to believe the courts will uphold any of the restrictions - listed above - you seek?

Done. See above.

 

Thus: To do what you want, you need to amend the constitution.

You have no factual or rational basis for any of this meaningless nonsense.

I did.
Your example of the police shooting back inherently disqualifies it from what I said.

 

@TOG 6

FYI, Switzerland's defense is what is called a "Total Defense" in which every citizen is armed with a rifle in case the nation is invaded - which would be wise after being surrounded by two world wars. It's a great strategy for a small, relatively low-population nation because whoever invades will have to face millions of Swiss citizens. Their defense expenditure is only ~$6 billion.

Why doesn't Switzerland have a high gun violence rate? Simple - because they are a liberal democracy with strong social programs, a thus a high standard of living. it's people are well educated, healthy, content and not in need.

When taxes are high (particularly on the rich) and are used to directly benefit its people (rather than further enrich the wealthy & corporations), you end up with a country of happy, healthy, content people. Such people have no need for guns - nor are they a danger if they do have guns.

That's why I said in my earlier post above that American gun violence is a systemic issue - not a gun problem per se. In the US, corporate & political corruption is not only well tolerated, but promoted and rewarded. This leads to pretty much all the problems that Americans are dealing with on a daily basis. What kind of country can one expect to have if this continues?

I understand for most who want a gun, it's about personal safety. But they should also understand that NRA/gun industry propaganda will blow this way out of proportion.

 

That is misleading because when it was at it peak high murder rate in the early 1980's the states began allowing concealed carry that over time saw a 45% drop in murder rate.

The first post was dishonestly misleading as well because America is nowhere near no #1 in gun murder rate as that chart was highly selective here, I show the full picture that includes many more nations on the list from the UNODC database in Wikipedia:



LINK

 

Kinda hard to amend the Constitution when Congress is saturated with Trumpers & right-wing establishment/corporate shills. The people would first have to vote more Dems into Congress for any meaningful amendment to be successful.

LOL - I could write a multi-volume book about it. In fact, there have been thousands of books written about this. Where have you been living?

The very fact that corporations & the wealthy are allowed to buy off politicians & judges should give you a clue, plus America's long history of corruption from its earliest days - which native Americans, blacks, and other minorities felt the impact of.

Do you even know what 'corruption' means? Or are you just in denial?

You deliberately ignored the part where I said, "...and those trying to escape."

My entire statement still applies. If a shooter has to reload more often, it (1) gives cops more time to get there before more people get shot, and (2) it allows people more opportunities to escape (or even try to subdue the shooter).

Common sense, dude.