O/T feel sick inside - CT Elementary shooting

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

If the assault rifle ban were reinstated, some incidents would be stopped.

Barry,

I respectfully disagree. I believe these sickos would just find a hand gun, shotgun or other type of rifle (lever action, bolt action, etc) instead. I believe they're choosing assault rifles only because of their magazine capacity - to inflict as much damage as possible. An assault rifle ban would probably limit the amount of casualties, but would not stop the frequency of these types of events. No way! They'll find other types of guns.

Besides, from my understanding (and someone can correct me if I am wrong), an assault rifle ban (as the last one) does not mean gun owners have to "give up" their assault rifles. It only stops future transactions. The ban does not make it illegal to own an assault rifle, it only makes it illegal to barter one - buy, sell or trade. In other words, an assault rifle ban will not get existing assault rifles off the streets.

[packs]

It's putting a band aid on a broken arm. You can say you've done something to help. But you haven't fixed anything.

[oldjudge]

Second Ammendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The above is the Second Ammendment. It was written at a time when the US had no standing army; state militias were the country's sole ground army. As such, it was necessary for people to be armed to protect the country from foreign intrusion. The right to bear arms appears to be linked to the need for a well regulated militia. Today, there is no such need. Therefore, the way I read it, there is no reason today for private citizens to be armed, and certainly not to own automatic weapons. Hopefully lawmakers and the courts will agree.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Second Ammendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The above is the Second Ammendment. It was written at a time when the US had no standing army; state militias were the country's sole ground army. As such, it was necessary for people to be armed to protect the country from foreign intrusion. The right to bear arms appears to be linked to the need for a well regulated militia. Today, there is no such need. Therefore, the way I read it, there is no reason today for private citizens to be armed, and certainly not to own automatic weapons. Hopefully lawmakers and the courts will agree.

NO, Jay, the Supreme Court very recently rejected that interpretation.

[Gecklund311]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Second Ammendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The above is the Second Ammendment. It was written at a time when the US had no standing army; state militias were the country's sole ground army. As such, it was necessary for people to be armed to protect the country from foreign intrusion. The right to bear arms appears to be linked to the need for a well regulated militia. Today, there is no such need. Therefore, the way I read it, there is no reason today for private citizens to be armed, and certainly not to own automatic weapons. Hopefully lawmakers and the courts will agree.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the bolded statement above, and did so fairly recently. There is plenty of room to maneuver if you want to restrict the types of guns purchased and who can purchase them.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Second Ammendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The above is the Second Ammendment. It was written at a time when the US had no standing army; state militias were the country's sole ground army. As such, it was necessary for people to be armed to protect the country from foreign intrusion. The right to bear arms appears to be linked to the need for a well regulated militia. Today, there is no such need. Therefore, the way I read it, there is no reason today for private citizens to be armed, and certainly not to own automatic weapons. Hopefully lawmakers and the courts will agree.

Interesting how you can twist the Second Amendment to make your point. Can I play too? Let's talk about the First Amendment - Separation of Church and State and the removing of prayer in public schools. If our forefathers thought that prayer in public schools was a violation of the First Amendment, don't you think they would have done something about it 1789 (when the First Amendment was ratified) rather than waiting nearly two hundred years until 1962 (when it was taken out of schools)? Certainly. So why let it go on for 200 years? But that's not what the First Amendment was about - it was to keep the State from setting up one religion like the Church of England. But Madalyn Murray O'Hair got her way by twisting the First Amendment to suit her needs. I don't see you complaining about that. Or is it okay to interpret the Bill of Rights the way you want to when it suits you?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Interesting how you can twist the Second Amendment to make your point. Can I play too? Let's talk about the First Amendment - Separation of Church and State and the removing of prayer in public schools. If our forefathers thought that prayer in public schools was a violation of the First Amendment, don't you think they would have done something about it 1789 (when the First Amendment was ratified) rather than waiting nearly two hundred years until 1962 (when it was taken out of schools)? Certainly. So why let it go on for 200 years? But that's not what the First Amendment was about - it was to keep the State from setting up one religion like the Church of England. But Madalyn Murray O'Hair got her way by twisting the First Amendment to suit her needs. I don't see you complaining about that. Or is it okay to interpret the Bill of Rights the way you want to when it suits you?

I wouldn't say Jay is twisting it. it was a close S.Ct. vote and a very respectable argument was made concerning the Militia Clause.

[Vintageismygame]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Second Ammendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The above is the Second Ammendment. It was written at a time when the US had no standing army; state militias were the country's sole ground army. As such, it was necessary for people to be armed to protect the country from foreign intrusion. The right to bear arms appears to be linked to the need for a well regulated militia. Today, there is no such need. Therefore, the way I read it, there is no reason today for private citizens to be armed, and certainly not to own automatic weapons. Hopefully lawmakers and the courts will agree.

We, the people must be armed to keep our government in their place. End of story. And please do not continue to confuse Automatic weapons with Semi-Automatic weapons.

[Texxxx]

Originally Posted by Vintageismygame

We, the people must be armed to keep our government in their place. End of story. And please do not continue to confuse Automatic weapons with Semi-Automatic weapons.

If they come after our retirement accounts and the government in power is talking about it, it may come down to the use of guns to stop it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Texxxx

If they come after our retirement accounts and the Dems are talking about it, it may come down to the use of guns to stop it.

The gun debate isn't necessarily party affiliated (though I realize it is a little bit). If this thread goes into a political debate (Republican vs Democrat) the thread will be closed.

[Texxxx]

Sorry Leon, I will reword it.

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by Texxxx

If they come after our retirement accounts and the government in power is talking about it, it may come down to the use of guns to stop it.

Sorry Texxxx, edited for being "over the top".

Enjoy your weapons,

Matt Hall

[oldjudge]

The number of weapons in the arms of private citizens is the number 1 reason why we have not been invaded, whether it be a foreign or domestic government.


That color is the sun in your world?

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Vintageismygame

We, the people must be armed to keep our government in their place. End of story. And please do not continue to confuse Automatic weapons with Semi-Automatic weapons.

This, I believe, is the reason our Founders wrote the second amendment. They had just fought off an out of control tyrannical government, and understood that it could happen again. In this day and age of uncertainty, I think the trust in government is extremely low. Tyranny sneaks in, it doesn't announce itself. It was not about "hunting" (the right of the people to bear arms)

The Khmer Rouge (The Communist Party of Cambodia) won power from a right wing military government in 1975 after a five year long bloody civil war. The people of Cambodia were tired, and hoped for times of peace. They were terribly disapointed, as the Khmer Rouge's fanatical leader Pol Pot instituted social and agricultural reforms that ravaged the country.

Under Pol Pot & the Khmer Rouge, with their extreme Marxist philosophy, only the uneducated workers and the peasants were to be trusted. The skilled workers, the middle class, the rich, and the intellectuals of Cambodia were all potential threats/ counter-revolutionaries in the eyes of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. They were systematically arrested and tortured. Those that survived, were forcibly "re-educated" as agricultural laborers (slaves).

They were forced to work and live in total squalor, usually denied tools to do their work, and made to use their bare hands. Thousands were executed on the slightest pretext, or they simply lay down and died in what became famously known as "The Killing Fields".

It is estimated that over 1.5 million people were slaughtered in this way, before Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge were given the boot in 1979 by an invading Vietnamese army. Cambodia's intellectual classes and skilled workers were almost destroyed by less than four years of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge's repression.

This is just one instance in our not so distant past that an out of control government slaughtered their own people. It's called democide. If you disarm the public, this is what can possibly happen (not saying it will, but look back at world history to see for yourself).

Can it happen here? Who the hell wants to find out ????? People want to be able to protect themselves *from any danger*. God Bless America.

Sincerely, Clayton

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Barry,

I respectfully disagree. I believe these sickos would just find a hand gun, shotgun or other type of rifle (lever action, bolt action, etc) instead. I believe they're choosing assault rifles only because of their magazine capacity - to inflict as much damage as possible. An assault rifle ban would probably limit the amount of casualties, but would not stop the frequency of these types of events. No way! They'll find other types of guns.

Besides, from my understanding (and someone can correct me if I am wrong), an assault rifle ban (as the last one) does not mean gun owners have to "give up" their assault rifles. It only stops future transactions. The ban does not make it illegal to own an assault rifle, it only makes it illegal to barter one - buy, sell or trade. In other words, an assault rifle ban will not get existing assault rifles off the streets.

not only that but the last assault rifle ban only stopped sales of assault rifles and the high capacity magazines produced after a certain date, all the rifles and magazines produced before that date were still legal to buy albeit at high prices due to supply and demand.

Also the ban didn't refer to the guns semi-automatic feature, as full automatic is already banned. It basically referred to the looks of the gun, the folding stock, the telescoping stock, a certain scope, the pistol grip, the bayonet mount, etc. it needed three of these characteristics to fall under the ban.

manufacturers just made these guns with 2 characteristics and it was still legal to sell. so an assault weapons ban was nothing more than a ban of "scary looking" guns. semi-automatic rifles (one pull, one shot) were still legal to buy and sell and regular semi-automatic hunting rifles that don't look as scary are still one pull, one shot, and they are just as lethal in the wrong hands.