Is the right to bear arms outdated.

[Chris]

It looks like the AR-15 has already been banned.......in a way.

Now that everyone is in a panic, there is no inventory left. It could take a year to get one now. Everyone will cool off by then. For now, aspiring militia men will have to make due with a mix of pepper spray and harsh language.

 

[marc]

I thoroughly enjoyed the whole thread. My 2 coins.
Once you change a teeny tiny little part of the Constitution, you have killed the whole of it. They added the Bill of Rights which laid out some stuff that was obvious but since we are considered neanderthals, it was necessary. Then we added some other amendments of which some are just stupid. Heck, prohibition or no prohibition shows what happens when we think we know what we are doing.

Gun control, what we really want is the guns out of the hands of the wackos, nut cases, druggies, felons, etc. etc. In other words the laws are there people, ask your government and your lazy cops to stop chasing speeding GT40s and do some real work.

I just saw where we are paying a police captain $200K a year and will retire at that level this year. You think we are getting are monies worth?

Lastly I am a gun owner, I am not going to surrender the only protection afforded to me by the constitution, and I hope that no one EVER gives up any of the rights We the People have bled to gain.

Marc Blum
[email protected]

 

[John Milmont]

A friend of mine proposed an interesting gun control method today. I don't think it would ever happen but it is definitely out of the box thinking.

His idea:
Require 2 people to vouch for you when you buy a firearm. And, if you commit a crime with that firearm, those 2 people who vouched for you also get into some kind of trouble.

This way, when Mr. Would-be-mass-shooter tries to go buy his weapon, he might have a hard time getting it when he needs 2 people to sign off on him since all of these shooters seem to be outcasts.

Of course, I don't think this limits any flow of guns to gangs, but it might do something to prevent the crazies from getting them.

At first, I didn't like the idea. But after I thought about it, it didn't seem so bad. As a responsible owner, I have nothing to fear and I would sign for my friends and I know they would do the same for me.

I know there might be some other problems with this, but its an interesting idea.

 

[Tom P]

This happen in Athens TN in 1946 when corrupt politicians tried to steal the vote. It's not ancient hystory, only 66 years ago.

>http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html

 

[Chris]

A friend of mine proposed an interesting gun control method today. I don't think it would ever happen but it is definitely out of the box thinking.

His idea:
Require 2 people to vouch for you when you buy a firearm. And, if you commit a crime with that firearm, those 2 people who vouched for you also get into some kind of trouble.

This way, when Mr. Would-be-mass-shooter tries to go buy his weapon, he might have a hard time getting it when he needs 2 people to sign off on him since all of these shooters seem to be outcasts.

Of course, I don't think this limits any flow of guns to gangs, but it might do something to prevent the crazies from getting them.

At first, I didn't like the idea. But after I thought about it, it didn't seem so bad. As a responsible owner, I have nothing to fear and I would sign for my friends and I know they would do the same for me.

I know there might be some other problems with this, but its an interesting idea.

John

You may be on to something there. You need references to get a job so why not a gun? Just the idea of extra scrutinization sounds good to me. We have to get better at spotting the red flags.

 

[Pat]

It sounds like you are trying to solve a mental health issue with a simplistic administrative gun solution. Ironically, the individual forced to comply is more far likely to stop - versus commit such a weapons crime. In the most recent school shooting the young murderer simply stole the guns. In Columbine, the weapons were illegal - and not assault rifles (interestingly their arsenal also included: 48 -- Carbon Dioxide bombs, 27 -- Pipe bombs, 11 -- 1.5 gallon propane bombs, 7 -- gas or napalm bombs, 2 -- 20 pound propane bombs). The latter are readily available to any whack-job with a credit card.
The murderers were, like the others, deranged. Like criminals, deranged people aren't going to follow the rules. As I posted before, the massacre at my elementary school was done with explosives.
Until you deal with the root cause, you won't solve the problem. We tolerate dangerously mentally ill because it is easier to medicate them and simply hope they go away. At the time of his death, one of the Columbine shooters (Harris) had therapeutic Luvox levels in his system as well as prescribed Zoloft. Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, argued that one or both of these medications may have contributed to Harris's actions. Breggin said that side-effects of these drugs include increased aggression, loss of remorse, depersonalization, and mania. So we medicate them and they can become more dangerous to themselves or others.
We don't say anything when anti-social junior wears Goth clothes, posts sick suicidal crap online and spends his days in a X-Box fantasy world exploding heads on his video console or reveling in the most recent action movie release. The media feeds the fantasy of these sick little shits by making them famous beyond belief and play to every societal revenge fantasy imaginable. Research on mass murder events has identified a probable “copycat” effect in which the actions of some perpetrators may be triggered by exhaustive media hype of similar events. http://www.rit.edu/cla/cpsi/WorkingPapers/2009/2009-11.pdf
In addition to possessing firearms, consider other similarities. How many were in some sort of psychiatric care, how many on meds, how many were socially isolated, how many came from broken or dysfunctional families, how many had clear warning signs where family, school, friends or therapist made no intervention? (Hint: the answer is pretty easy).
Why not address that? Remove the administrative barriers to identify and address the dangerously mentally ill and isolate them if necessary. Until the root cause is addressed, these things will occur and if it’s not an AR-15 today it will be a pipe bomb tomorrow.

 

[John Milmont]

Yes, I know Pat - and all to well.

But, going back to my quote about the "comprehensive ignorance" of the anti-gun movement, and the nature of our political system - I am certain congress is going pass some sort of new gun control laws soon. And much like the Clinton Assault weapons ban, I fear what they are going to be passing is going to be stupid, not well thought out and irrelevant.

If they are going to pass something, and they will, I think I would be happy if they passed my friends proposal. It really is the most common-sense measure I have heard and doesn't really tread on our second amendment rights. How much good it would do remains to be seen, but I think it would be a good experiment.

Pat, I think in the very least, this proposal is an affordable measure to address the issue of people not making an intervention in lives of individuals who are obviously displaying the warning signs you mention. I think the idea of having more doctors administer more tests is really not practical and would be something that might infringe on other rights.

 

[Danimal W]

It sounds like you are trying to solve a mental health issue with a simplistic administrative gun solution. Ironically, the individual forced to comply is more far likely to stop - versus commit such a weapons crime. In the most recent school shooting the young murderer simply stole the guns. In Columbine, the weapons were illegal - and not assault rifles (interestingly their arsenal also included: 48 -- Carbon Dioxide bombs, 27 -- Pipe bombs, 11 -- 1.5 gallon propane bombs, 7 -- gas or napalm bombs, 2 -- 20 pound propane bombs). The latter are readily available to any whack-job with a credit card.
The murderers were, like the others, deranged. Like criminals, deranged people aren't going to follow the rules. As I posted before, the massacre at my elementary school was done with explosives.
Until you deal with the root cause, you won't solve the problem. We tolerate dangerously mentally ill because it is easier to medicate them and simply hope they go away. At the time of his death, one of the Columbine shooters (Harris) had therapeutic Luvox levels in his system as well as prescribed Zoloft. Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, argued that one or both of these medications may have contributed to Harris's actions. Breggin said that side-effects of these drugs include increased aggression, loss of remorse, depersonalization, and mania. So we medicate them and they can become more dangerous to themselves or others.
We don't say anything when anti-social junior wears Goth clothes, posts sick suicidal crap online and spends his days in a X-Box fantasy world exploding heads on his video console or reveling in the most recent action movie release. The media feeds the fantasy of these sick little shits by making them famous beyond belief and play to every societal revenge fantasy imaginable. Research on mass murder events has identified a probable “copycat” effect in which the actions of some perpetrators may be triggered by exhaustive media hype of similar events. http://www.rit.edu/cla/cpsi/WorkingPapers/2009/2009-11.pdf
In addition to possessing firearms, consider other similarities. How many were in some sort of psychiatric care, how many on meds, how many were socially isolated, how many came from broken or dysfunctional families, how many had clear warning signs where family, school, friends or therapist made no intervention? (Hint: the answer is pretty easy).
Why not address that? Remove the administrative barriers to identify and address the dangerously mentally ill and isolate them if necessary. Until the root cause is addressed, these things will occur and if it’s not an AR-15 today it will be a pipe bomb tomorrow.

Something I find disturbing is how many videos on YouTube about making bombs and other nasty things. And a large number of these videos are posted by kids.

 

[Jack]

Here's the older proposed list. Add to that the language of a national registration for all firearms that you will soon see.

[SIZE=+1]Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady's plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady's current plans and targets of opportunity. It's horrific. They're going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They've made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Rifles (or copies or duplicates):[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]M1 Carbine,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Sturm Ruger Mini-14,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]AR-15,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Bushmaster XM15,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Armalite M15,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]AR-10,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Thompson 1927,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Thompson M1;[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]AK,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]AKM,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]AKS,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]AK-47,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]AK-74,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]ARM,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]MAK90,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]NHM 90,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]NHM 91,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]SA 85,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]SA 93,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]VEPR;[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Olympic Arms PCR;[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]AR70,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Calico Liberty ,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Fabrique National FN/FAL,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]FN/LAR, or FNC,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Hi-Point20Carbine,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]HK-91,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]HK-93,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]HK-94,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]HK-PSG-1,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Thompson 1927 Commando,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Saiga,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]SAR-8,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]SAR-4800,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]SKS with detachable magazine,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]SLG 95,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]SLR 95 or 96,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Steyr AU,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Tavor,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Uzi,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Galil and Uzi Sporter,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Pistols (or copies or duplicates):[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Calico M-110,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]MAC-10,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]MAC-11, or MPA3,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Olympic Arms OA,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]TEC-9,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]TEC-DC9,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Uzi.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Armscor 30 BG,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]SPAS 12 or LAW 12,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Striker 12,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](i) a folding or telescoping stock,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](ii) a threaded barrel,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]below),[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]detachable magazine, and has:[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](i) a second pistol grip,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](ii) a threaded barrel,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](iii) a barrel shroud or[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]rounds.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]A semiautomatic shotgun with:[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](i) a folding or telescoping stock,[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]of more than 5 rounds, and[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1][/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Note that Obama's pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose -- is that devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent. [/SIZE] [SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America Gun Laws of America[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1][/SIZE]

 

[Steve]

Pat really hits the nail on the head a bit. I've made several posts to the same. Of course, the gun control fanatics/liberals will never respond to them as there isn't a valid argument to counter what Pat has detailed:

Fundamentally, this isn't a "gun" issue. This is an issue with the growing mass-violence problem in the US (although arguably growing/worsening in some European countries as well). It would only be a gun issue if gun violence was on the rise but it is dropping precipitously on a per capita basis. Mass violence incidents are on the rise. Pat has pointed out some of the commonalities of many of the perpetrators. Ultimately, I haven't heard a good explanation as to why the same mentally unstable individuals didn't resort to these types of killings during the 70's and 80's.

Certainly the media doesn't want to do any introspection as to how they might be contributing to the rise......

 

[Larry L.]

...I haven't heard a good explanation as to why the same mentally unstable individuals didn't resort to these types of killings during the 70's and 80's.

Very likely because the gun-free zone laws that created the fish-in-a-barrel targets for loons didn't come into being until the mid nineties. Gun-free zones gave loons a guaranteed 99.999% probability that they'd be the only ones on site who'd have a gun BY LAW. Loons had never HAD that guarantee before. (They may be nuts, but that doesn't mean they're stupid.)

I've yet to hear any advocate of anti-gun laws provide a rational explanation as to why their crowning glory - the GUN-FREE ZONE law - hasn't done DIDDLEY to prevent gun violence in schools & wherever else. I mean, after all, according to them PASSING LAWS is all that's necessary to completely alter the behavior of criminals and loons, right? So, why-oh-why hasn't a LAW the prohibits absolutely EVERYONE from packing ANY kind of gun in this-or-that location put an end to mass murders (or any kind of gun related crime) in those places? In light of that absolute reality, how will passing even ONE MORE gun control law change anything? Seriously. How?

There isn't an anti-gun lib on the planet who'll touch those questions with a 40 foot pole.


Edit: I would, however, argue that repealing the gun-free zone laws could - could - cut down on the number of these incidents...and if nothing else, might cut down on the number of casualties. I'd further argue that 'allowing' people with CCWs to carry wherever they darn well please would be a step in the right direction as well. I see no reason whatsoever to limit/restrict/prohibit anyone who has a CCW from carrying anyplace. (After all, The Founders provided no list of places where one could & could not "carry", did they. Neither did they restrict what someone could carry, HOW they could carry it, nor how many rounds their weapon could hold. Given that the constitution trumps any state law, I'm at a complete loss to understand how the states CAN do that - legally that is.)

'Stepin' off my soapbox now...

 

[Steve]

Larry,

Wouldn't argue that those laws do little to nothing.

Where I'm heading with my post was that there are aspects of our society that seem to encourage these mass-violence events. Is it violent video games? Is it violent movies? Is it violence on television during the day and prime time? Is it all of the above? The prevalence of these things certainly is greater than when I was a kid in the late 60's through the early 80's. Jaws was a very violent movie when I was a kid. It would be PG or PG-13 at best today and largely boring to the average teen. At some point, we as a society seem to have been desensitized to extreme violence and it just doesn't seem to be terribly horrific to a mentally deranged person to act out what they see in video games and TV every day. The media coverage, analysis and publicity seems to add to the attractiveness of going out in a "blaze of glory".

The media and the gun-control advocates seem very intent on infringing on the 2nd amendment, but god-forbid they self-regulate their violence.

 

[Larry L.]

At some point, we as a society seem to have been desensitized to extreme violence and it just doesn't seem to be terribly horrific to a mentally deranged person to act out what they see in video games and TV every day. The media coverage, analysis and publicity seems to add to the attractiveness of going out in a "blaze of glory".

'Probably very valid points...but the problem is how would we as a society determine beforehand which individuals are going to fit into the 'nut' category and thereby ban only their access to such things?

The media and the gun-control advocates seem very intent on infringing on the 2nd amendment, but god-forbid they self-regulate their violence.

'Completely right on both points IMO...

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Jack good post, Veek good post. Which means I agree with both of you.
The problem is not guns, as always the problem is people. The nutters who want to blow others away, and the other nutters in government who get off on control
And assume they know better than you what is good for you.
Do I have a solution yes but these days I would also be called a nutter if I spelt it out.
Happy new year to all, you Yanks are teetering on the edge of a very dangerous cliff. For all our sakes I hope you sort it.
Please don't drink and drive, but you already knew that.

 

[Richard]

Only 57.4 % of voters who could vote legally voted.... you want a better country get off your ass and get invoulved in things before you hear about it on the news... or shut the F-up

 

[Pat]

Pete, I couldn't agree more. And Steve, I think you are absolutely on the money but add media hypocrisy to the list. Caution, very course language and violence but it certainly makes a point...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU]Demand A Plan - Demand Celebrities Go F*CK Themselves! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Jack]

Pete, Your solution is self-evident, and I strongly agree!

 

[Jim Craik]

The problem is not guns, as always the problem is people.

Posted by Pete

The problem is people with guns!

They have people in Japan......
They have people in India.......

Murder rate by Country, per 100,000 population

Japan............0.5%
India.............3.7%
USA..............5.5%

What don't they have?..............................guns!

Gun deaths per 100,000 of population, 2010

Japan................0.07
India.................0.93
USA..................10.2

Since we cant get rid of the people, the answer is to get rid of the guns.

 

[marc]

guns did not do the deed, the bullets did. why don't you outlaw them. people die from a bullet entering the body, not stabbing with a gun. But hey by the numbers you can prove that 0 does equal 1. I vote to get rid of people. Capital punishment, public hangings get serious about you take a life, you give up your life. They just commuted a fat guys sentence to Life because he was too fat to "humanily" kill him. give me a break.

 

[Pat]

For those of you that support the position that all we need is more gun laws, we have a real life experiment as to the efficacy of such laws.
A week ago on NBC’s Meet the Press, David Gregory brandished on screen a high-capacity assault rifle magazine. Oops. It seems such a high-capacity magazine is currently illegal in the District of Columbia where Meet the Press is telecast. Further, the flagrant breach of D.C. gun laws is now under investigation by the police.
While ignorance of the law is no defense, in this case NBC were informed by the D.C. police that it would be illegal to show the thing on TV, and they went ahead and did it anyway. Why that’s silly, as CNN’s Howard Kurtz put it, everybody knows David Gregory wasn’t “planning to commit any crimes.” So what? Neither are the overwhelming majority of his fellow high-capacity-magazine-owning Americans. But the law’s the law.
Will David Gregory face investigation, prosecution, and a sentence of 20–30 years with eligibility for parole after ten? If he does, I’ll support your position that more stringent gun laws would work.