Guns in America

[Dave Hood]

I think you need to take a breath, Larry.

Our founders were talking about arming Militias, not individuals. And the only guns they knew about at the time were ones like the Brown Bess Musket that was capable of firing three to four shots per minute. If you're saying you'd be happy to follow their original intent, I'd be happy if we limited gun ownership to those types of guns. Since that is what they envisioned.....

 

[Larry L.]

I think you need to take a breath, Larry.

Why? 'Current b.p. 108/70...heart rate 68. You're of course entitled to your opinion...erroneous as it may be...:nice:

Our founders were talking about arming Militias, not individuals.

Really. Then why did they not write, "...the right of MILITIA MEMBERS to keep and bear shall not be infringed"? :shrug:




You guys are REALLY 'stretching' when you have to resort to what I earlier referred to as "anti-gunner agenda-driven, legalese infested, smoke and mirrors obfuscation" like defining "the people" as meaning "the country"..."bearing" arms as a euphemism for "firing" a gun...and all the rest of the lingual gymnastics going on above to argue your point(s).


'Had my fill for tonight.

G'night, troops.

 

[John]

Getting away from the gun law carry on to the incident itself, it seems there are a rather large number of holes in the official press release regarding, 1 mans ability to perform this action, especialy with no prior gun knowledge, no physical training, and no affiliation with any groups of any kind, except a huge gambling debt
10 mins of continuous automatic fire takes a lot of stamina, also in 10 mins i'd guess around 2500 to 3000 rounds were fired, yet they only found a dozen or so spent brass on the floor.
Mmmm I wonder why.
John

 

[Larry L.]

...i'd guess around 2500 to 3000 rounds were fired, yet they only found a dozen or so spent brass on the floor.

THAT little factoid I hadn't heard! :shocked:


'Tis quite a 'puzzlement' alright...

 

[Doug S.]

I am not sure what you are getting at with the rest of this paragraph....Oh and by the way the constitution was drafted and passed AFTER we won the revolutionary war. There for I don't see the connection with Britain. I think they had gotten the idea at this point.

Keep looking this dog didn't hunt............with all due civil respect

Yeah, Howard, when I wrote that paragraph even I thought it was a bit "rambling", so to speak.

The general gist if my point in writing this:

"How long before you accept the fact that the Founding Fathers, when they spoke of "the people", were referencing the population of the United States (which wasn't anywhere near what it is now days, further convincing me that the FF's had no idea what the future would bring and therefore were not drafting this "Hands Off!!!" shot at Great Britain to protect individual rights...they were more interested in "the people" as in the population of the United States!)"

...was to emphasize my belief that with the nature of our American society back in the days in which these documents were being drafted the FF's could not possibly have envisioned the huge population growth for our country, much less the technological development that would change our society in the manner it has, but they WERE aware of GB's tendency to invade other sovereign countries and establish British rule, and fully expected England to strike again.

Our Declaration of Independence was a document to say "Hey...back off, England, we are our own sovereign nation now and will not tolerate your invasive actions. HANDS OFF!!!" They were right...we won the Revolutionary War, but that wasn't enough, and the FF's WERE astute enough to know that England wouldn't give up that easily. Next came the Constitution and then Amendments...but Britain would not give up easily and the FF's knew that...and sure enough, they were right, as evidenced by the War of 1812.

So...with a growing national population and huge natural resources we would still have been an attractive target, but it would still have been impossible to see into the future to be able to plan for the societal advances we have seen since the 2nd Amendment was drafted...so they again took a shot at England and said "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed...", meaning to me that the country's population, which relied on a militia to repel England's advances, would certainly arm a militia so that future attempts to "conquer" America would be met with military might, and the second Amendment was their way of warning other countries that they better think twice before challenging our army (our "armed" militia).

Yeah...sorta rambling, again, I know, hope I was able to communicate adequately my interpretation of "...the people".

Cheers, Howard!

Doug

 

[Howard Jones]

Well I think in many ways you are correct. The FF's were in fact very worried about governments, both foreign and domestic (this being a powerful central government) gaining enough of a upper hand to enforce unfriendly laws on the people or in the case of a foreign government imposing foreign rule apron them.

So they created a two pronged defense. First, the federal had the responsibility to protect the constitution and the people from foreign aggression. The FF's were nervous with the national army/navy enforcing the internal laws of the country but did not initially prohibit it directly. However later congress did prohibit national forces usurping state and local law enforcement. I will offer the following for your interest.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42659.pdf

Second, The FF's also went so far as to provide for the people to protect themselves from tyrannical government overreach. This is the clear main purpose of the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution.

On a second note: the Arms that were used to overthrow the King were the state of the art at the time. The FF's well knew what they were and how necessary modern arms would be to control a rogue government. In fact they had done just such a thing, and suffered greatly in doing so.

I submit that the brown bess musket of the late 1700s IS the AR15 of today.

And a third: The population of the colony's had grown from one boatload in about 1600 to over 2.5 million in 1776, with it nearly doubling in the 10 years before the revolution began in the mid 1770's. It's also interesting to note that the colony's grew to about 3.9 mil as the revolution went on and its aftermath. Additionally in the mid/late 1700's it enjoyed the highest per capital standard of living on earth.

Population of the 13 Colonies 1610-1790 (chart) | YT&T: Study Hall.Rocks

Everyday Life in America – A Patriot's History of the United States See last paragraph

Economy in The American Revolution

One of the foremost points of interest in the new government was westward expansion and North America quickly became a leading source of innovation and scientific discovery. The FF's were in the forefront of political thought and it would surprise me to learn that they didn't understand the potential for growth of both population and military evolution.

I would like to add that my participation in this discussion on the 2nd amendment in no way diminishes the sadness I feel for the victims in Las Vegas. However, it is meant to inform so as not to allow those who would use tragedy as means to forward their own political agenda at the expense of us all. If the 2nd falls then the 1st will shortly thereafter. After that America will no longer be a free country.

Good talk!

 

[Howard Jones]

On the incident itself.

I think at this point a lot of information is either wrong or in error. Lets let the investigation tell us what happened and why before we speculate.

 

[Doug S.]

Funny you should mention the AR15...here is a true story!
I was walking into a Kroger in Huntsville, TX and passed a table at which a man and his children were selling raffle tickets, so I asked what the winner of the raffle would get and a young boy, about 6 years of age, said what I heard as "an RV". Well, that interested me, so asked if they had a picture of the RV...and was immediately informed that the prize was not an RV, it was an AR15. I was quite literaly shocked speechless that such a weapon could be sold in such a manner...and even more perplexed as to how the father would use those kids to stimulate interest in such an item.

Controls on gun sales? Not in that case!

I just said "Oh...no thanks, I don't play with guns!" and left...could not believe what I had witnessed!

True story...I assure you.

Cheers? Certainly not for that father!!!

Doug

 

[Howard Jones]

God bless The Great State of Texas!

 

[Doug S.]

If you like TX, you'd LOVE Kansas...open carry or concealed carry...no permit required.

Brownback...he is probably the most loved and most hated governor in the US.

Doug

 

[Mike Pass]

58 dead and 500 wounded and this is what you discuss. Really.

Cheers
Mike

 

[Doug S.]

Guns in America is what allowed that to happen, Mike...we're all perplexed about how this tragedy could have occurred in the first place. Better gun laws might well have prevented the magnitude of that disaster, but raffling off an AR15 without any background checks, etc, won't help.

So...yeah, I think the issue bears discussion, at least...and I know I'm in the minority when I say I want greater controls!

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Randy V]

I think it is safe to that laws basically keep law abiding people in check and do very little to sway the law breakers.
I agree that we need to let the investigation run its course to gather and disseminate the facts. We really need to be cognizant of the new normal of Fake News for the purposes of driving agendas, be they clicks or otherwise.

Something was said on one thread I was monitoring that really rings true -
When a drunk driver takes a life, we blame the driver.
When a terrorist blows up a building and takes lives, we blame the bomber.
When a shooter takes aim and kills a bunch of people, we blame the gun(s).

Something has changed fundamentally within our society.
Guns have always been available and have been used for only a small handful of purposes -
1) Anti-personnel
2) Protection (via discharge or threat of discharge)
3) Hunting
4) Sport

Many good people own guns and are of no particular threat to society. They are within their legal rights to own them and I don't see that changing.
What I do see is increased scrutiny on the purchase / transfer approval process - IE "the law".
This will be more of an impediment for the law abiding people than it will the law breaker.
.....and in the end ----
We will still have cases like these with inncocent lives lost and we will be wringing our hands trying to figure out how to stop it.

Stop selling cars to drunks.
Stop selling pressure cookers to terrorists.
Stop selling guns to shooters.

or.....

Go back to basics and see how and when fundamental decency failed and see if we can reverse that trend.

or.....

Talk about it until we are all out of words and mad at each other - then do nothing...
.
.
Welcome to the new normal... God help us.

 

[Larry L.]

If you like TX, you'd LOVE Kansas...open carry or concealed carry...no permit required.

...just as The Founders had intended. Imagine that.

G

...I know I'm in the minority when I say I want greater controls!

...even though passing countless "gun control" laws over a number of decades has done n-o-t-h-i-n-g to curb gun violence...and has done nothing to keep crooks and loons from getting whatever type of gun or ammo they want? :shrug:


What's the definition of 'insanity' again...?

 

[Larry L.]

I think it is safe to that laws basically keep law abiding people in check and do very little to sway the law breakers.
I agree that we need to let the investigation run its course to gather and disseminate the facts. We really need to be cognizant of the new normal of Fake News for the purposes of driving agendas, be they clicks or otherwise.

Something was said on one thread I was monitoring that really rings true -
When a drunk driver takes a life, we blame the driver.
When a terrorist blows up a building and takes lives, we blame the bomber.
When a shooter takes aim and kills a bunch of people, we blame the gun(s).

Something has changed fundamentally within our society.
Guns have always been available and have been used for only a small handful of purposes -
1) Anti-personnel
2) Protection (via discharge or threat of discharge)
3) Hunting
4) Sport

Many good people own guns and are of no particular threat to society. They are within their legal rights to own them and I don't see that changing.
What I do see is increased scrutiny on the purchase / transfer approval process - IE "the law".
This will be more of an impediment for the law abiding people than it will the law breaker.
.....and in the end ----
We will still have cases like these with inncocent lives lost and we will be wringing our hands trying to figure out how to stop it.

Stop selling cars to drunks.
Stop selling pressure cookers to terrorists.
Stop selling guns to shooters.

or.....

Go back to basics and see how and when fundamental decency failed and see if we can reverse that trend.

or.....

Talk about it until we are all out of words and mad at each other - then do nothing...
.
.
Welcome to the new normal... God help us.

SHUDDUP, Randy! You're making too much sense!

 

[Nick]

What's the definition of 'insanity' again...?

This

A spokesperson for Ferrero said: ‘Kinder Surprise is not available in the United States as the US Food and Drug Administration has taken the position that a specific regulation relating to non-nutritive objects embedded in food stuff makes Kinder Surprise not suitable for sale and distribution in the US. ‘The safety of its consumers, especially children, is and has always been Ferrero’s number one priority. Ferrero is absolutely dedicated to providing the safest products possible, from product design to production to final use, going beyond regulatory requirements

More than 60,000 Kinder eggs were seized by US Customs and Border Protection in 2011. A spokesperson said: ‘While sold in many countries, this product is banned from the US because young children can choke on it.


While

Even watered down gun legislation dies on the floor of the senate, whilst carrying concealed guns in some states schools is acceptable.

More insanity

The Daily Show - Gun Control Whoop-de-doo - YouTube

The real insanity is we in the UK Australia Japan and many other countries, can eat Kinder Eggs and have gun control that works, yet you cant achieve this in the US. The real insanity is you can spend hours debating and holding up your 2nd amendment paddles to defend your point of view, but seem to have no time or wish to come up with any solutions.

In fact one of your main arguments against gun control on this thread seems to be people will get hold of guns illegally if they want to so why try and stop them with laws.

The main purpose of a car is to get you from A to B
The main purpose of a pressure cooker is to cook.
The main purpose of a gun is to kill.


NRA and the pro gun lobby.....follow the money

 

[Doug S.]

...even though passing countless "gun control" laws over a number of decades has done n-o-t-h-i-n-g to curb gun violence...and has done nothing to keep crooks and loons from getting whatever type of gun or ammo they want? :shrug: ...

Kinda hard to say that with any semblance of certainty, Larry, since no stats are kept (or available) on people who were dissuaded from purchasing guns or ammo because of the inconvenience created by those very laws... :idea:

Cheers!!

Doug

 

[Jeff Young]

Let's use Randy's example of drunk driving. Up until the mid 80s, drinking and driving was a minor offense. Lots of people did it. Penalties were low.

We changed the laws in the mid 80s. Lowered BAC level limits. Made penalties much stricter. Required those who drank and drove to pay more in insurance to cover the fact they were engaging in behavior that impacted others.

I'm all for the individual right to own weapons for defense and as a hobby. With limits. Registration of all guns. Registering all transfers with the government. Insurance for gun owners. All new weapon sales occurring at government owned gun stores.

And before the "but I need guns to protect myself from government tyranny crowd" umps in, let me correct some of the errors in Howard's post.

The founders had no unified intent at the Constitutional convention regarding the 2nd amendment. In fact, they were split. And so were the colonies. Some had an individual right to own a gun, others had only a collective militia based one. And the intent of the founders when it came to "protection from tyranny" was not really from the state and local government, but the idea that the states and their militias could prevent a tyrannical federal government from overreach.

And as to the AR-15 being the Brown Bess of its day? Bullhockey. The founders didn't intend to allow citizens to own weapons capable of that level of lethality. A more apt equivalent is that an AR-15 is the equivalent of a cannon firing grapeshot in 1787. Which no one thought the 2nd gave an indivudal a right to own.

 

[Nick]

Thanks Mike Randy Doug and Jeff, some good points

...even though passing countless "gun control" laws over a number of decades has done n-o-t-h-i-n-g to curb gun violence...and has done nothing to keep crooks and loons from getting whatever type of gun or ammo they want? :shrug:

Larry,

Even though passing countless drug use laws over a number of decades has done n-o-t-h-i-n-g to curb drug use...and has done nothing to keep crooks and loons from getting whatever type of drugs they want.

I guess then you would stop passing those laws :shrug:

As has already been pointed out earlier in the thread you need to start implementing the laws you have and to stop blocking those trying to find a solution.

.

Should we enforce the gun laws that are already on the books? Of course we should. Would tighter gun laws have stopped what happened in Las Vegas? Probably not given the horrific number of guns already in the hands of pricks like the guy in Las Vegas. But to explain massacres like the one in Sandy Hook, Orlando, Las Vegas or a typical weekend on the South side of Chicago as "statistically insignificant" is sick.

Hopefully the compassion, morals and leadership of our current President will bring hope to this country. I guess I should stop there....

 

[Larry L.]

And as to the AR-15...The founders didn't intend to allow citizens to own weapons capable of that level of lethality.

...and you know that to be a fact...how...exactly? Wasn't the purpose of granting the right to keep and bear, in large part, supposed to be to enable "the people" to fight ARMIES (both foreign and/OR domestic in the case of tyranny) in defense of the country? Shouldn't the 'good guys' have arms equal to or superior to those of 'the enemy'?

A more apt equivalent is that an AR-15 is the equivalent of a cannon firing grapeshot in 1787.

'Reaching'...





If The Founders had concerns about the lethality level inherent in the firearms of the future and believed that the right to keep and bear should be altered accordingly, don't you think The Founders would have included in the 2nd Amend something like: "If in the future firearms advance to the point where they can both hold and fire ('X' number...fill in the blank) of rounds per minute, congress shall have the authority to ban private ownership of such firearms if it so chooses, and/or limit private ownership to firearms with whatever maximum capacity/rate of fire congress deems prudent"?

No, you say?

Well then, odds are the FFs must not have been sweating the whole "lethality" thing too much... :nice: