Gun ownership poll

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by G1911

Somewhere around: 0.

Like I said, I think they are clearly unconstitutional, and do absolutely nothing to stop a planned massacre. Firearms are the only object the state is constitutionally barred from restricting. Background checks may or may not reduce some crimes of passion (which are intensely personal killings and not broad massacres) by effectively instituting a time delay if a flagged individual attempts a purchase. I’ve not seen much accrual evidence either way there.

If they are unconstitutional, then why do the NSA, FBI, etc., state after the fact, 100% of the time, that the shooter was throwing off this or that red flag? Why then do they collect the data? Maybe background checks is the wrong name for what I am talking about. Why not act on Intel before these c-suckers act. Is it their constitutional right.to shoot up a school, or grocery store, or church? How much more of this BS before we truly mean it when we say we've had enough?

[scottglevy]

I do not own any but have shot many of them and enjoy going to the range from time to time. Just because I do not own a gun doesn’t say too much about my political views as I support the rights of Americans to own and use firearms in a responsible manner. Every single person that I know personally who owns one takes this responsibility seriously to the best of my knowledge.

[Smarti5051]

Since everybody is giving an opinion, I guess here is mine. I don't own a gun, and I guess I would take some comfort in knowing that there are not millions of them circulating around the general population. Do I believe that the majority of gun owners are safe, responsible and actually create a deterrent to gun violence? Yes. But, I have lived long enough and seen enough to know that this country also has alot of idiots (and mob mentality can quickly escalate normally peaceful idiots to violence), and the thought of them having easy access to guns is a bit scary.

The question I do have for the pro-gun side, is: what is the advantage to having legal guns that can shoot 100+ rounds per minute? If the concern is gun for safety and protection, I have to think a 10-12 round gun would cover 99.99% of safety threats - indeed, even our police who are put in harm's way daily do not walk around with machine guns. If used for hunting, I feel like anything more than 10-12 shots at a single target would seem like cheating (granted, I am not a hunter). If it is just for entertainment of shooting guns, I have to think a compromise whereby businesses are set up with special licensing to safely shoot machine guns. If it is to potentially form a militia to overthrow a corrupt government, this seems naive, as any corrupt leader of this nation's weapons stockpile with the support of the US military could easily dispose of any uprising of the citizenry even with the best publicly available weaponry. This will not stop a criminal enterprise from acquiring a machine gun through illegal means, but it will stop many of the idiots who do not have the resources or connections to acquire them easily.

Also, I am a bit skeptical that any sort of background check would really unearth many of the red flags that seem to surface in the days after a mass shooting. Mental health issues are not like a blood test which comes up negative or positive. A seemingly normal adult (or child) could have a string of events that lead to depression and a chemical imbalance. How is any background check really going to detect this? Not to mention, if you took away rights of anyone with a diagnosed "mental illness" in their past, you would actually chill anyone from seeking help and cause a massive S***-storm from those that have successfully overcome past mental health issues.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

Since everybody is giving an opinion, I guess here is mine. I don't own a gun, and I guess I would take some comfort in knowing that there are not millions of them circulating around the general population. Do I believe that the majority of gun owners are safe, responsible and actually create a deterrent to gun violence? Yes. But, I have lived long enough and seen enough to know that this country also has alot of idiots (and mob mentality can quickly escalate normally peaceful idiots to violence), and the thought of them having easy access to guns is a bit scary.

The question I do have for the pro-gun side, is: what is the advantage to having legal guns that can shoot 100+ rounds per minute? If the concern is gun for safety and protection, I have to think a 10-12 round gun would cover 99.99% of safety threats - indeed, even our police who are put in harm's way daily do not walk around with machine guns. If used for hunting, I feel like anything more than 10-12 shots at a single target would seem like cheating (granted, I am not a hunter). If it is just for entertainment of shooting guns, I have to think a compromise whereby businesses are set up with special licensing to safely shoot machine guns. If it is to potentially form a militia to overthrow a corrupt government, this seems naive, as any corrupt leader of this nation's weapons stockpile with the support of the US military could easily dispose of any uprising of the citizenry even with the best publicly available weaponry. This will not stop a criminal enterprise from acquiring a machine gun through illegal means, but it will stop many of the idiots who do not have the resources or connections to acquire them easily.

Also, I am a bit skeptical that any sort of background check would really unearth many of the red flags that seem to surface in the days after a mass shooting. Mental health issues are not like a blood test which comes up negative or positive. A seemingly normal adult (or child) could have a string of events that lead to depression and a chemical imbalance. How is any background check really going to detect this? Not to mention, if you took away rights of anyone with a diagnosed "mental illness" in their past, you would actually chill anyone from seeking help and cause a massive S***-storm from those that have successfully overcome past mental health issues.

When someone is known to be looking at, even engaging in violent rhetoric, and then vocally espousing white-supremacist vitriol and the need to perform an incident to beat all incidents whereby listeners talk about it on Facebook and Twitter, why can't that Intel be spread among the agencies, one hand talking to the other, and have a law enforcement agency pay him a visit before he has the chance to act out his evil deed?

[Smarti5051]

Originally Posted by jingram058

When someone is known to be looking at, even engaging in violent rhetoric, and then vocally espousing white-supremacist vitriol

There are literally hundreds of thousands of these people engaging in this conduct daily, to various degrees. And, most of the time, there is nothing illegal in engaging in any of the activities above online. And, "white-supremacist vitriol" is only one extreme. There are plenty of extremes in this country and every year social media pushes folks closer to these extremes. For a government agency to make a personal visit to everyone that has a "negative thought" would only exacerbate the situation and bankrupt the country as we would have to increase these government agencies by 100-200x their current staffing.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

There are plenty of extremes in this country and every year social media pushes folks closer to these extremes.

-- Anti-abortion (edited: those who stalk, threaten, and attack doctors)
-- Environmental terrorism (not as popular anymore)
-- Bundy ranchers who want to end public ownership of land
-- Antifa (but I haven't heard much from them in two years)
etc etc etc

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Being against abortion is "extreme"?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

When someone is known to be looking at, even engaging in violent rhetoric, and then vocally espousing white-supremacist vitriol and the need to perform an incident to beat all incidents whereby listeners talk about it on Facebook and Twitter, why can't that Intel be spread among the agencies, one hand talking to the other, and have a law enforcement agency pay him a visit before he has the chance to act out his evil deed?

It would be a lot cheaper and more efficient to step up security in schools. The government investigating every nut job who posts on Twitter? Good luck with that.

[Deertick]

If "constitutional carry" becomes the norm, a Rangers/Rays game may have the hit total surpassed by the shot total.
In my county alone, over a dozen handguns were stolen from unlocked vehicles in January alone. Zero repercussions to the "responsible gun owners". Every day there are posts on sites like Facebook and Nextdoor of people intimating that if someone were to "try" to steal their car/truck/cat/dog, they would be shot because of their mistaken interpretation of "castle doctrine" or SYG. This past year, there have been two CCP gentlemen who were deemed to have "accidently displayed" during arguments with unarmed persons.

Our current societal environment does not support unfettered carry. Any actions taken to try and mitigate any of the above instances gets squashed in a second. I have zero hope that situations like Columbine, Sandy Hook, LV, Parkland, Buffalo, and Uvalde will become a thing of the past.

I own a Colt Special Agent Revolver loaded with .38 +P

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

The question I do have for the pro-gun side, is: what is the advantage to having legal guns that can shoot 100+ rounds per minute? If the concern is gun for safety and protection, I have to think a 10-12 round gun would cover 99.99% of safety threats - indeed, even our police who are put in harm's way daily do not walk around with machine guns. If used for hunting, I feel like anything more than 10-12 shots at a single target would seem like cheating (granted, I am not a hunter). If it is just for entertainment of shooting guns, I have to think a compromise whereby businesses are set up with special licensing to safely shoot machine guns. If it is to potentially form a militia to overthrow a corrupt government, this seems naive, as any corrupt leader of this nation's weapons stockpile with the support of the US military could easily dispose of any uprising of the citizenry even with the best publicly available weaponry. This will not stop a criminal enterprise from acquiring a machine gun through illegal means, but it will stop many of the idiots who do not have the resources or connections to acquire them easily.

.

I think you are covering two different things here, rate of fire and magazine size.

First, almost nobody is defending themself with a machine gun. A machine gun that was registered before 1986 is legally transferable in free states. They cost many thousands of dollars and I am not aware of even one time they have been used in a self defense situation - they are for the rich hobbyist and carefully guarded. No home owner wants the cops to seize his $40,000 registered machine gun if he must protect his family. Machine guns are easily acquired or made with even limited mechanical knowledge - in a lot of ways it’s actually easier to manufacture a machine gun than a semi-automatic.

As for over 100 rounds per minute, this is not a real thing with the semi-auto’s 99.999% of self defense rifles and pistols are. It’s an RPM measurement, what the gun can mechanically fire. An AR can mechanically cycle 500 times a minute, but you don’t shoot at a semi autos maximum mechanical ability in the real world. If you somehow did, you’d set fire to it before you hit 500. 100 round drum magazines do exist (nobody is using belt feed guns for home defense) but are generally much less reliable and not used for serious purpose. The standard home defense setup in 2022 is an M4 with a 30 round magazine (often downloaded to 28 or 29 for smoother operation of the bolt and feeding).

As for the magazine capacity, my response would be why would I hamper myself to a disadvantage? The local gangs aren’t running around with 10 round magazines. More and more home invasions are conducted by more than one person (as was the one I survived). 10 rounds of 5.56 ain’t much if you’ve got 3 guys invading your home. I want a full mag in the well, and 2 more attached to my stock to reload. A criminal will not (and does not - many states have these restrictions and they have accomplished exactly nothing) respect a 10 round capacity limit, it only makes it harder for responsible citizens to defend their families. 10 round mags can also be a pain to reload, the designs just are not built for such a small magazine. Reloading an AK with a 10 round mag is a pain and people tend to screw up the rock in with them.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by G1911

A thread that has been pretty polite and mannered debating firearms ownership is the most disrespectful thing you have ever encountered?

What's the intent of the thread? The OP has a pretty politicized slant when he starts the thread with "There is no question this country has a gun problem."

How many 4th graders were killed by an evil POS, and almost immediately a post goes up about gun ownership? Not "how do we protect our children"?

I'm tired of the predictable and inevitable "gun control" debate that follows any tragic shooting. The number one debate should be "how do we protect our children" followed by "what is causing the human behind the firearm to commit such atrocities?"

So yes, this is a pretty disrespectful thread in my eyes.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

What's the intent of the thread? The OP has a pretty politicized slant when he starts the thread with "There is no question this country has a gun problem."

How many 4th graders were killed by an evil POS, and almost immediately a post goes up about gun ownership? Not "how do we protect our children"?

I'm tired of the predictable and inevitable "gun control" debate that follows any tragic shooting. The number one debate should be "how do we protect our children" followed by "what is causing the human behind the firearm to commit such atrocities?"

So yes, this is a pretty disrespectful thread in my eyes.

It's a debate and he started with his premise. Others have rebutted, agreed and disagreed.
Personally, I think this thread has been quite tame. IF it goes off the rail it will get locked. Hopefully it stays ok.
Also, if anyone is seriously debating you need to have your name out here per the rules (or per me asking for them in this thread, whatever you want)

As for this debate, I don't think guns kill people. I have never heard of a gun just killing someone with no one pulling the trigger (yes, there are probably extraordinary situations).
I will go back to the biggest problem in America today, and what leads to most (not all) of this, BAD PARENTING.

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The last word is yours Bob. You're too angry, defensive and reactive for me to engage in a reasonable discussion. It seems a person can't disagree with you without you taking personal offense and turning it into a fight/diatribe. No thanks. Peace.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Leon

It's a debate and he started with his premise. Others have rebutted, agreed and disagreed.
Personally, I think this thread has been quite tame. IF it goes off the rail it will get locked. Hopefully it stays ok.
Also, if anyone is seriously debating you need to have your name out here per the rules (or per me asking for them in this thread, whatever you want)

As for this debate, I don't think guns kill people. I have never heard of a gun just killing someone with no one pulling the trigger (yes, there are probably extraordinary situations).
I will go back to the biggest problem in America today, and what leads to most (not all) of this, BAD PARENTING.

.

I'm not saying the thread should be locked. It's hardly a debate, though, when the OP states "There is no question this country has a gun problem," and anyone else who partakes in the so-called debate is handcuffed by a "no politics rule" fear.

I simply believe it's in poor taste to have this discussion/debate in the wake of an event that took the lives of a bunch of 4th graders. Between the shooter's mental health history, the obvious piss poor parenting from the POS's POS mother, and the police response, blaming the inanimate firearm(s) shouldn't even come to mind.

All shootings involve mental health issues, while most additionally involve family issues and some sort of Big Pharma drug. Nobody wants to debate that, though, because it 1) doesn't make someone money, 2) the topics don't exactly fit certain political agendas, and 3) actually solving problems means less money to be made and less opportunity at power grabs, encompassing 1 & 2.

Never let a good crisis go to waste, right? So, please, "debate" away while my wife and I discuss schooling options that are not public school, considering "debates" like this prove fewer people actually care about focusing on real solutions to protecting our kids than should.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

What's the intent of the thread? The OP has a pretty politicized slant when he starts the thread with "There is no question this country has a gun problem."

How many 4th graders were killed by an evil POS, and almost immediately a post goes up about gun ownership? Not "how do we protect our children"?

I'm tired of the predictable and inevitable "gun control" debate that follows any tragic shooting. The number one debate should be "how do we protect our children" followed by "what is causing the human behind the firearm to commit such atrocities?"

So yes, this is a pretty disrespectful thread in my eyes.

The OP is as entitled to give his opinion as anyone else.

I don't disagree with your view, I too wish people who stop pretending it's a tool if the tool used has political capital (there's never a left-wing outrage over a hammer murder or a knife murder) and would address the actual issue: the person who used the tool. But everyone is entitled to their opinion in a debate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Michael, if "pro-abortion" is not the best or most neutral term, then neither is "pro-choice," which is a feelgood phase that misleadingly implies that all that is involved is a decision by a single individual.

[Directly]

There must be laws here as in England with regulations on knives allowed to be carried , no guns for citizens or law enforcement in England or Australia. Only the military need weapons,

[1952boyntoncollector]

I too am a fan of enforcing laws on the books.

Also i propose random searches of people on the street with a metal detector.....if drugs are found but they are declared before search you cant be arrested for that or anything else declared...

even if have a warrant for arrest, you would get a mandatory court appearence and receive a ticket but not have to post any bond but if do not show up they are new charges..

basically i dont want police using the random search to target people who then get arrested for other crimes but get the guns off the street...

if dont have a license to carry a gun you shouldnt have one on the street ..

If someone were to run from a search knowing they cant be arrested for anything other than carrying the gun, it would give good reason for a foot pursuit as we alway hear 'he ran cause had a warrant' etc....

[G1911]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I too am a fan of enforcing laws on the books.

Also i propose random searches of people on the street with a metal detector.....if drugs are found but they are declared before search you cant be arrested for that or anything else declared...

even if have a warrant for arrest, you would get a mandatory court appearence and receive a ticket but not have to post any bond but if do not show up they are new charges..

basically i dont want police using the random search to target people who then get arrested for other crimes but get the guns off the street...

if dont have a license to carry a gun you shouldnt have one on the street ..

If someone were to run from a search knowing they cant be arrested for anything other than carrying the gun, it would give good reason for a foot pursuit as we alway hear 'he ran cause had a warrant' etc....

https://constitution.congress.gov/co...n/amendment-4/

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by G1911

https://constitution.congress.gov/co...n/amendment-4/

metal detector is not unreasonable.......i do think the amount of people killed by gun violence is unreasonable..

[HexsHeroes]

.

I own four vintage shotguns that have not been shot in many years.

Have been seriously considering giving my guns to the four beneficiaries (all gun enthusiast with proper storage equipment) defined within my will now, instead of later. Would be another positive step in simplifying/eliminating the extra stuff I have as I prepare for future retirement (3-4 years out). Would like to eventually downsize to a much smaller house/accommondations so what I no longer own I will no longer need to deal with in a move.

[1991AtlantaBraves]

Banning video games such as the GTA series, television shows such as Breaking Bad, and music labeled with “explicit lyrics” would actually reduce violent crime quite a bit…..not to mention imposing heavy fines/long jail terms/death penalty on the offenders - whichever one(s) fit the crime.

This is a spiritual battle being waged, but one side completely refuses to acknowledge this fact. Said side has too much to lose if it’s wrong, I suppose.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by 1991AtlantaBraves

Banning video games such as the GTA series, television shows such as Breaking Bad, and music labeled with “explicit lyrics” would actually reduce violent crime quite a bit…..not to mention imposing heavy fines/long jail terms/death penalty on the offenders - whichever one(s) fit the crime.

This is a spiritual battle being waged, but one side completely refuses to acknowledge this fact. Said side has too much to lose if it’s wrong, I suppose.

i hate the music you are referring too as well but becomes a slippery slope when start to say what has a bad influence on people so lets control it...who gets to control it and who doesnt get controlled who barely makes the cut who makes a huuuge profit versus the guy that gets cut so has to file bankruptcy is a very thin line....who decides and how you know thats fair.........politics plays a role which means not a pure decision but a political one.

where are the parents as well who can help control their kids ability to view certain content and i would think that should be a parents choice not political.... i agree on the jail terms etc but again thats politics..

..death penalty i never for because if one person killed and was due to politics not fair....if kill one person by mistake ever not fair ..costs more to kill someone than to keep in jail...if somebody kills a hostage and knows will now get the death penalty why not kill more since punishment the same.... people have been let out of jail on death row years later when proven were innocent...if killed zero chance to free them...not sure how anyone can be for death penalty when everyone knows people go on death row that are later freed for being innocent ..

[G1911]

Originally Posted by 1991AtlantaBraves

Banning video games such as the GTA series, television shows such as Breaking Bad, and music labeled with “explicit lyrics” would actually reduce violent crime quite a bit…..not to mention imposing heavy fines/long jail terms/death penalty on the offenders - whichever one(s) fit the crime.

This is a spiritual battle being waged, but one side completely refuses to acknowledge this fact. Said side has too much to lose if it’s wrong, I suppose.

Even if the suppositions were true, I would be as against banning music, films and games and ignoring the first amendment as I am against ignoring the second amendment.

I don’t think there’s much of a connection though. Violence has been prevalent in art and literature since the very beginning. Homer and Hesiod, the first western literature are replete with it. Fiction tends to always go in the most shocking direction. I think there is much to be said for the time when people spoke properly, wore suits when they went anywhere in public, and would be horrified to hear the words common on radio said so publicly. The current form, in which there are less social restrictions on people’s choices and lives than ever before certainly has not made for a happier youth, with depression being almost trendy among my generation and the next one. But I don’t think 1) there is a way to have everything perfect and 2) it has not produced much violence, statistically.

In fact, violence went down for the generation of NWA and Call of Duty. Violence has steadily dropped with time until it rocketed in 2020 for reasons that don’t seem to be generational or entertainment related.

My gut feeling would be that flooding kids with displays of violence from early childhood and on probably isn’t good. My gut feeling when I’m at a gun store and see someone trying to buy their favorite weapon in call of duty is that this is a moron and maybe should choose not to exercise his right to do that. But I don’t think the data backs up this feeling. “Ban X to solve our problems” formulations are almost never even close to true and rarely stand to even cursory examination. Playing Call of Duty doesn’t make one a murderer, listening to rap doesn’t make one a murderer, no more than owning a firearm does.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

The question I do have for the pro-gun side, is: what is the advantage to having legal guns that can shoot 100+ rounds per minute? If the concern is gun for safety and protection, I have to think a 10-12 round gun would cover 99.99% of safety threats - indeed, even our police who are put in harm's way daily do not walk around with machine guns.

You've fallen into a common misconception. One which is easy to fall into.

It conflates three different things.

Rate of fire - Rounds per minute
Capacity- how many the gun holds
Full vs semi-automatic.

Easiest one first.
Fully automatic=Pull the trigger it shoots till you stop or the ammo runs out.
Semi Automatic= One pull one shot, but you have to pull the trigger for each one. A large percentage of guns are this type. The shotgun my friend has me use for trap shooing is. I just load one at a time to stay within the rules.

Fully automatic - "machine guns" have been heavily controlled since the mid 1930's. Full registration, $200 tax to transfer, very serious background check, some serious legal trouble for not doing things properly. Since those controls were put in place, last I checked there have only been 2-3 incidents involving a legally owned full auto weapon.

And that moves right into the "police don't have machine guns"...One of those incidents was a law officer using a department machine gun that he was legally allowed to use. Just not at all the way he used it.

Most guns, depending on how they were made and local laws hold less than 10 rounds. If you're in a place that allows higher capacity maybe as many as 30. Much more isn't common, but is possible.

So yes, you may be able to fire hundreds of rounds a minute, but you'll be out in a few seconds. And usually anything past the first one isn't going where you want it to go. (Yes, I've tried, shot 1 was pretty good. They said I did well to get number 2 on the paper, and the backstop fortunately caught number 3 - It was good that was all I was allowed for that exercise. Could I have done better with practice? sure. But anything outside the target is pretty much a fail.

Oh, and a huge percentage of regular hunting rifles are semi-auto. They just don't look "tactical" so the crazy people don't usually buy them. In some cases they have the exact same inner machinery as the ones everyone wants to ban.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by steve B

You've fallen into a common misconception. One which is easy to fall into.

It conflates three different things.

Rate of fire - Rounds per minute
Capacity- how many the gun holds
Full vs semi-automatic.

Easiest one first.
Fully automatic=Pull the trigger it shoots till you stop or the ammo runs out.
Semi Automatic= One pull one shot, but you have to pull the trigger for each one. A large percentage of guns are this type. The shotgun my friend has me use for trap shooing is. I just load one at a time to stay within the rules.

Fully automatic - "machine guns" have been heavily controlled since the mid 1930's. Full registration, $200 tax to transfer, very serious background check, some serious legal trouble for not doing things properly. Since those controls were put in place, last I checked there have only been 2-3 incidents involving a legally owned full auto weapon.

And that moves right into the "police don't have machine guns"...One of those incidents was a law officer using a department machine gun that he was legally allowed to use. Just not at all the way he used it.

Most guns, depending on how they were made and local laws hold less than 10 rounds. If you're in a place that allows higher capacity maybe as many as 30. Much more isn't common, but is possible.

So yes, you may be able to fire hundreds of rounds a minute, but you'll be out in a few seconds. And usually anything past the first one isn't going where you want it to go. (Yes, I've tried, shot 1 was pretty good. They said I did well to get number 2 on the paper, and the backstop fortunately caught number 3 - It was good that was all I was allowed for that exercise. Could I have done better with practice? sure. But anything outside the target is pretty much a fail.

Oh, and a huge percentage of regular hunting rifles are semi-auto. They just don't look "tactical" so the crazy people don't usually buy them. In some cases they have the exact same inner machinery as the ones everyone wants to ban.

Also, pertaining to semi-automatic pistols:

The way gun-controllers term it, a double-action revolver (the common, every-day revolver), is a semi-automatic weapon. Think about it; one pull of the trigger, one shot out of the barrel. You pull the trigger again, another bullet comes out of the barrel (each time you pull the trigger, the cylinder automatically rotates until another round is lined up with the barrel). Nothing else needs to be done; you just keep pulling the trigger until the cylinder is empty. Current revolvers hold up to eight rounds, the same as a Colt M1911 .45 caliber semi-auto (there are some that hold even more). Current semi-automatics, like a Glock-17 (the first Glock ever made in the 1980s), holds a standard capacity of 17 rounds. The Left wants to ban all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; that would effectively ban nearly all Glock handguns, along with many others that hold more than 10 rounds as the standard capacity.

Also, The Left wants to ban the AR-15. Guess what round the AR-15 shoots.....the .22 caliber; a round that Pres Biden apparently has no problem with. He just wants to ban the AR-15 because it looks dangerous. Then, he wants to ban the 9mm (NATO standard) round, that the vast majority of common, every-day pistols (in the world) shoots, because it, in his words "blows the lung out of the body." I guess he's never heard of a .357 magnum, or .44 magnum (think Dirty Harry), or a 10mm (will take down a bear, or even a .50 caliber Desert Eagle. All of those are handguns, and the first two (magnums) are revolvers. It just all proves that The Left doesn't have a clue of what they're talking about!

Steve

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Steve D

Also, pertaining to semi-automatic pistols:

The way gun-controllers term it, a double-action revolver (the common, every-day revolver), is a semi-automatic weapon. Think about it; one pull of the trigger, one shot out of the barrel. You pull the trigger again, another bullet comes out of the barrel (each time you pull the trigger, the cylinder automatically rotates until another round is lined up with the barrel). Nothing else needs to be done; you just keep pulling the trigger until the cylinder is empty. Current revolvers hold up to eight rounds, the same as a Colt M1911 .45 caliber semi-auto (there are some that hold even more). Current semi-automatics, like a Glock-17 (the first Glock ever made in the 1980s), holds a standard capacity of 17 rounds. The Left wants to ban all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; that would effectively ban nearly all Glock handguns, along with many others that hold more than 10 rounds as the standard capacity.

Also, The Left wants to ban the AR-15. Guess what round the AR-15 shoots.....the .22 caliber; a round that Pres Biden apparently has no problem with. He just wants to ban the AR-15 because it looks dangerous. Then, he wants to ban the 9mm (NATO standard) round, that the vast majority of common, every-day pistols (in the world) shoots, because it, in his words "blows the lung out of the body." I guess he's never heard of a .357 magnum, or .44 magnum (think Dirty Harry), or a 10mm (will take down a bear, or even a .50 caliber Desert Eagle. All of those are handguns, and the first two (magnums) are revolvers. It just all proves that The Left doesn't have a clue of what they're talking about!

Steve

It is usually amusing to look at their quotes or see what they term “high power”. A 9mm is extremely popular because it is generally seen as at or near the bottom of the power scale for a cartridge that can be effective in self defense. 5.56 is also about as low-power as cartridges in its class can get.

Really controversial is to debate .45 ACP vs 9mm Parabellum. As a classy feller, I always carry .25 ACP though.

[Butch7999]

"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."

Seems to us like 99% of Americans are either too illiterate or too lazy
to read that entire sentence and understand the delimiting context of
the clause in the first half. Or maybe it's us, and we're mistaking
the armed forces and police as a well-regulated militia. Bazookas
and tanks for everyone!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Butch7999

"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."

Seems to us like 99% of Americans are either too illiterate or too lazy
to read that entire sentence and understand the delimiting context of
the clause in the first half. Or maybe it's us, and we're mistaking
the armed forces and police as a well-regulated militia. Bazookas
and tanks for everyone!

Perhaps you should read the court decisions on the Militia Clause, if you have not. Basically, they don't find it limits the broader right.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps you should read the court decisions on the Militia Clause, if you have not. Basically, they don't find it limits the broader right.

And perhaps he should also have his full name in his post...unless he is "too illiterate or too lazy to read" the forum rules.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps you should read the court decisions on the Militia Clause, if you have not. Basically, they don't find it limits the broader right.

I would add that the founders actions and writings also make it abundantly clear that they very much saw it as a right granted to the population.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would add that the founders actions and writings also make it abundantly clear that they very much saw it as a right granted to the population.

From the Supreme Court 2007 Heller decision. Sorry to people who don't like it, and I may not like it myself, but it's the way it is.

Held:
1. 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.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Oh and Michael, by the way, regarding that "extreme" view of when life begins.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

[Butch7999]

Peter, thanks for the informative clarification. Obviously, if we had a say,
we'd dissent vehemently against the court's tenuous inference. The
ammosexual crowd can be glad we'll never be able to rule on this one.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From the Supreme Court 2007 Heller decision. Sorry to people who don't like it, and I may not like it myself, but it's the way it is.

Held:
...
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. ...

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From the Supreme Court 2007 Heller decision. Sorry to people who don't like it, and I may not like it myself, but it's the way it is.

Held:

1. 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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Also, here is the CURRENT LEGAL DEFINITION of The Militia:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

32 U.S. Code § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—

(1) be a citizen of the United States; and

(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

So, ALL US citizens over the age of 18, and under the age of 45 (under 64 in certain cases), are members of the US Militia.

As stated above in DC vs Heller, the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, is not limited by militia membership.

Therefore, ALL US Citizens of legal age (over 18), have the right to keep and bear arms, and this right "shall not be infringed" upon.

Steve

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would add that the founders actions and writings also make it abundantly clear that they very much saw it as a right granted to the population.

Those the same founders that made it abundantly clear that women aren't equal to men and blacks count as 3/5?

You have spent a lot of words defending the status quo on guns, do you have any suggestions on how to deal with mass shootings? Is anyone who would like to make any changes at all to make gun laws tighter or stricter automatically labeled a "banisher"?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Those the same founders that made it abundantly clear that women aren't equal to men and blacks count as 3/5?

You have spent a lot of words defending the status quo on guns, do you have any suggestions on how to deal with mass shootings? Is anyone who would like to make any changes at all to make gun laws tighter or stricter automatically labeled a "banisher"?

You're right. We should void all of the constitutional liberties we have because the Founder's did not have 2022 values. I'm sure you can see the fallacy here. Debate on a reasonable foundation. 'X individual is guilty of Y, therefore they are wrong on Z' is not reasonable, and I'm sure all of you here would know that immediately if the issue was an unemotional one.

I would say that, when the topic is what the 2nd amendment means, referring to the words and actions of the people who wrote it and voted for it is quite relevant. You may think the 2nd shouldn't exist, and reasonably so, but I don't see how it is not relevant to what it means to refer to the people who authored it.

I am not a fan of the status quo on guns whatsoever. I think the 2nd is frequently infringed, especially in ban-heavy states like California. How many rounds are in my magazine, whether I have a muzzle brake or a compensator or a suppressor screwed on to the end of the barrel, where my rifle has a collapsible stock, whether it has a grip that protrudes below the action and allows my thumb around it, I do not think these are the business of the State.

No, one can support gun control measures that are not actually bans. I am quite aware what "ban" means. With the "lot of words" I have written here, I am sure you can reasonably object to things I have actually said instead of inventing straw men. Let's debate what I have actually said.

I think we should deal with mass shootings by focusing on the people who are guilty, and the causes of violence. I made several posts commenting on this before the derailing. It is not a specific tool, it is a decision people make. People are responsible for their actions. I would support many measures in the mental health realm. I do not support infringing on constitutional rights or banning some/all guns or blaming gunowners for the act of a nutter. I have even said I do not greatly object to background checks, even though there is little to no evidence they actually work. There are something like half a billion guns in this country, disarming the law abiding will not disarm someone hellbent on mass murder, the black market will always exist. It just makes it a little more dangerous for the rest of us.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

If they are unconstitutional, then why do the NSA, FBI, etc., state after the fact, 100% of the time, that the shooter was throwing off this or that red flag? Why then do they collect the data? Maybe background checks is the wrong name for what I am talking about. Why not act on Intel before these c-suckers act. Is it their constitutional right.to shoot up a school, or grocery store, or church? How much more of this BS before we truly mean it when we say we've had enough?

It sounds like you are proposing more than a check against criminal and mental health records like a normal background check. I do not know how you would possibly look at every post a person has ever made and determine if there is something too objectionable. I do not see how one launches a massive FBI investigation like they do after a tragedy for anyone trying to buy a firearm. How would this work? What it would specifically do? I can’t really comment on a proposal with no specifics.


“Is it their constitutional right to shoot up a school, or grocery store, or church?” - can we debate in good faith? I support firearms ownership and the right of myself to defend myself. You know damn well nothing I said provided any kind of support whatsoever for these tragedies.