2nd Amendment limitations...

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3234535
If you think you are going to get 50 hits in 10 seconds at 100 yards, I think your a bit off. Even with a 30 rd magazine and reloading, reaquiring target that's 5 AIMED/ shots/second WITHOUT reloading.
Come on. You know what point I was trying to make. You cannot possibly compare the damage an assault weapon can do to someone as opposed to using swinging a stick, baseball bat, or golf club as a weapon. Let me explain it in more simpler terms that you can comprehend - neither a stick, golf club, or baseball bat could kill or even hurt someone standing 100 yards away. An AK-47 could hit and kill that same person standing that same 100 yards away with ONE shot. HOWEVER, that weapon has the capability of shooting 50 OR MORE rounds depending on the magazine. Unless you have no knowledge whatsoever how to use a weapon like that, you would most likely hit that target 100 yards away with at least 60% of the rounds just by pointing it in the general direction. I know my AR-15 could fire off 50 rounds in less than 10 seconds. How do I know this? Because I cut a Mule Deer almost in half with one that I had 'modified' to a full auto from 40 yards away.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/3234574
You're talking about fully automatic weapons, which are already illegal to own in most circumstances.
Anyhow, my point was that just because you don't see a need for it, that does not consitute a reason why a ban is acceptable. I don't owe you or anyone else justification or rationale. As long as I do not deprive you of life liberty, or property, I should be able to do whatever I damn well please, period.
So if I want to own a nuclear device, as long as it doesn't deprive you of your life, liberty, or property, I can own one because I can do whatever I damn well please?

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3234537
Yeah, I remember well, his mom dies trying to get to freedom. He made it and our gov't returned him to communism from liberty.
You mean the mother that was ILLEGALLY entering this country, and KIDNAPPED her son and left Cuba without the father's consent? Then when she died, and the father wanted his son back, the mother's brother or sister wouldn't send the kid home to his father? And you justify this action simply because Cuba is a Communist country? So if the woman was from Haiti or Mexico, you wouldn't have had any problem with the father trying to get his son back? They interviewed this kid a year or so ago, and he has been quite happy and content living in Cuba. What's ironical about the entire issue is he probably wouldn't have had a better life in Cuba if it wasn't for the sensationalism his story created in the first place.

 

[mantisman51]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3234551
Therein lies the core of the debate. It isn't about what type of weapon, as I stated upthread.
The 2nd does, however, call for a "well regulated militia." What that means is a matter of discussion on some level, no?
"...THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED..." The state (government) is never referred to as "the people" in the Constitution-citizens are. The Japanese considered and then canceled plans to invade the U.S. after Pearl Harbor because the military tacticians knew they couldn't win against an armed civilian population. Likewise, Hitler's plan to invade Switzerland was nixed due to the Swiss civilians private arms. I am still left wondering why, when we have less violent crime than at any time since we started keeping records in the 1940's, there are those who live in such a state of fear of fellow citizens owning firearms. And if crime were higher now than then, why would you not want to have a means of protection? Every state that has loosened gun laws have lowered the crime rate (conceal carry laws/property protection statutes) Yet every state/city that has made it more difficult for citizens to own weapons still struggle with violent crime (New York, Detroit, Washington D.C.). I think it is a simple case of testosterone deficiency syndrome. Real men don't live in fear. They believe in their own ability to protect themselves and their family.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3234601
"...THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED..." The state (government) is never referred to as "the people" in the Constitution-citizens are. ...
You've missed my point entirely.
For the purposes of this discussion I don't care about crime rates. This discussion, as I see it, is about the Constitution, not about cultural dynamics.
As such:
I don't oppose the ownership of firearms. Unlike most of my fellow Liberals, I am quite in favor of an individual's right to own any weapon which the State possesses. If a weapon is to be banned, then it ought to be banned for all (and, in light of the 2nd, perhaps especially the State), not just individuals.
My point was this: The government which does not have a healthy respect for its citizens will abuse them.
(Just as an aside, however, Hitler's decision not to invade Switzerland had far more to do with the fact that the Swiss held his numbered bank accounts, which numbers could've been "lost," than that they (the Swiss) would've been able to put up a significant opposition to the Blitzkrieg. I'm also not sure where you get your info on WWII Japan from. They did, and remain, the only country to have invaded and occupied any part of the US.)

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3234551
Therein lies the core of the debate. It isn't about what type of weapon, as I stated upthread.
The 2nd does, however, call for a "well regulated militia." What that means is a matter of discussion on some level, no?
No. The original constitution only counted blacks as 3/5's of a person. The absurdity of that didn't negate the requirement that that provision be changed through a constitutional amendment. So it is with the second amendment. Even if it's sole purpose was to arm a militia it wouldn't change the phrase "shall not be infringed".

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3234645
No. The original constitution only counted blacks as 3/5's of a person. The absurdity of that didn't negate the requirement that that provision be changed through a constitutional amendment. So it is with the second amendment. Even if it's sole purpose was to arm a militia it wouldn't change the phrase "shall not be infringed".
ummm - nonsequitur... I fail to see how the first three sentences of your statement relate in any way to the 4th sentence.
As for the "shall not be infringed" part, I also don't see where anything I've said so far calls that into question. I asked for a definition of "militia," not "infringement."

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234583
Come on. You know what point I was trying to make. You cannot possibly compare the damage an assault weapon can do to someone as opposed to using swinging a stick, baseball bat, or golf club as a weapon. Let me explain it in more simpler terms that you can comprehend - neither a stick, golf club, or baseball bat could kill or even hurt someone standing 100 yards away. An AK-47 could hit and kill that same person standing that same 100 yards away with ONE shot. HOWEVER, that weapon has the capability of shooting 50 OR MORE rounds depending on the magazine. Unless you have no knowledge whatsoever how to use a weapon like that, you would most likely hit that target 100 yards away with at least 60% of the rounds just by pointing it in the general direction. I know my AR-15 could fire off 50 rounds in less than 10 seconds. How do I know this? Because I cut a Mule Deer almost in half with one that I had 'modified' to a full auto from 40 yards away.

Yeah, whatever cup cake.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3234648
ummm - nonsequitur... I fail to see how the first three sentences of your statement carry any relation to the 4th sentence.
As for the "shall not be infringed" part, I also don't see where anything I've said so far calls that into question. I asked for a definition of "militia," not "infringement."
What the first 3 sentences demonstrate is you don't get to remove provisions of the constitution on a whim,
Every able bodied male between the age of 15 and I believe 48 was considered to be a member of the militia.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3234651
What the first 3 sentences demonstrate is you don't get to remove provisions of the constitution on a whim,
I believe I stated that very thing upthread, specifically w/ regard to the Constitutionally provided for amendment process.
I am a little rusty, however. Can you please point out to me where in the Constitution it states the personhood value of an African-American? I know it was alluded to by some of the founders (notably Jefferson) in extraneous writings, but I fail to recall where it was actually included in the document.
Every able bodied male between the age of 15 and I believe 48 was considered to be a member of the militia.
Again, Constitutional citation would be appreciated. All I've been able to find is "...well regulated..." It doesn't mention age requirements or limitations as far as I've read.

 

[aquaknight]

Here's an idea...
What's the difference between heavy regulation, and an outright ban? I am, quite unfamiliar with the terms someone has to go through to own an automatic weapon, but I imagine, it's not easy. Is it really a thought that a ban, that would effective only remove the guns from law-abiding citizens, not criminals, really do anything? How many crimes that are committed with automatic weapons, are done so with properly owned/registered/etc auto weapons?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3234387
This is a point where I take serious issue with my fellow Liberals.
A question most of them can't answer: What's an assault weapon?
HEHE, that is a point the NRA makes, just because the gun looks scary doesn't mean it should be illegal... .223 is a tiny round compared to the damage a hollowpoint 45...
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234395
That's the best you can do on this subject? Oh, that's right. Most of your posts are just 'insult bombs' with no relevent content regarding the topic being discussed.

Oh please, he's make what 2 or 3 posts in his drive bye posting. I've made my views abundantly clear, and I'm not one of those people who love to hear himself talk.
Or in this case read what I type but if you must know. The whole premise of his posts is wrong, I don't NEED much, but it isn't the government's job to tell me what I do or don't NEED. I would love a corvette, I dang sure don't need one. Using said car irresponsibly could very easily result in people dying. I don't see the government banning the corvette. In fact I'm not 100% sure but I'd bed you good money that more people are killed driving fast cars than are killed in accidental gun deaths... I don't see a buncha fruit cakes running around saying we need to ban corvettes (well I take that back there are the tree huggers...) But you see my point.
It is clearly written in the constitution what their job is. But then you get to the post second, how can I have a discussion with someone who can't see the value of the constitution? While he sits in the best, richest country on earth, he says it is an obsolete document and basically finds it worthless. A document that had been a guide in building the most powerful nation in the world? It leaves me speechless.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3234493
meh, I gotta disagree there.
For one thing, the OP points are food for thought. I've said before and I'll say again: There is nothing to be learned from agreement.
If one can dismiss an opinion out of hand without so much as a logical counterpoint, then one has either lived too long or not long enough.
see above

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/3234664
Here's an idea...
What's the difference between heavy regulation, and an outright ban? I am, quite unfamiliar with the terms someone has to go through to own an automatic weapon, but I imagine, it's not easy. Is it really a thought that a ban, that would effective only remove the guns from law-abiding citizens, not criminals, really do anything? How many crimes that are committed with automatic weapons, are done so with properly owned/registered/etc auto weapons?
Regulation isn't very successful for any type of weapon. I haven't bought a gun in ages, but there's what, a 3 day waiting period from the time you go to the store and purchase the gun, to the time you can go back and pick it up? During that time, there's some 'background check', which I've heard is a joke. Considering how many people have unregistered or 'illegal' weapons out there committing hundreds of armed crimes on a daily basis, is proof enough regulation isn't sufficient, or just plain doesn't work.
The procedure for purchasing what is considered an assault-type weapon is no different than buying a pistol or shotgun. No special permits are required. Fully Automatics are a completely different breed, but the average citizen can't purchase these any longer to my knowledge, not even if you have a collector's permit. However, it doesn't take much to turn any semi-automatic assault rifle into a full auto if you so desire. Is it legal? Of course not. But individuals who want those types of weapons usually possess them for use in illegal situations anyways.
People claim that assault weapons are rarely used to commit crimes, or aren't used any more than any other type of weapon. The problem is, there's really no way to tell what type of weapon was used in a crime if the weapon isn't retrieved. Pretty much every gun that's deemed an assault weapon uses the same ammo as a gun that isn't classified as an assault weapon. So when you hear about a drive-by at some gang bangers house, and the house is riddled with multiple gun shots, were the shots fired by a couple of semi-automatic pistols, or one TEC-9?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3234667
HEHE, that is a point the NRA makes, just because the gun looks scary doesn't mean it should be illegal... .223 is a tiny round compared to the damage a hollowpoint 45...
Size of the round doesn't matter - it's all about kinetic energy. Yes, a .223 is tiny compared to a .45. Muzzle velocity makes up a substantial portion of the difference - 3,200fps for a typical .223 vs. 960fps for a typical .45. You're also comparing a hollow point to a full metal jacket round. Apples, oranges and potatoes.

 

[aquaknight]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234685
Regulation isn't very successful for any type of weapon. I haven't bought a gun in ages, but there's what, a 3 day waiting period from the time you go to the store and purchase the gun, to the time you can go back and pick it up? During that time, there's some 'background check', which I've heard is a joke. Considering how many people have unregistered or 'illegal' weapons out there committing hundreds of armed crimes on a daily basis, is proof enough regulation isn't sufficient, or just plain doesn't work.
The procedure for purchasing what is considered an assault-type weapon is no different than buying a pistol or shotgun. No special permits are required. Fully Automatics are a completely different breed, but the average citizen can't purchase these any longer to my knowledge, not even if you have a collector's permit. However, it doesn't take much to turn any semi-automatic assault rifle into a full auto if you so desire. Is it legal? Of course not. But individuals who want those types of weapons usually possess them for use in illegal situations anyways.
People claim that assault weapons are rarely used to commit crimes, or aren't used any more than any other type of weapon. The problem is, there's really no way to tell what type of weapon was used in a crime if the weapon isn't retrieved. Pretty much every gun that's deemed an assault weapon uses the same ammo as a gun that isn't classified as an assault weapon. So when you hear about a drive-by at some gang bangers house, and the house is riddled with multiple gun shots, were the shots fired by a couple of semi-automatic pistols, or one TEC-9?
So what are you and/or the OP suggesting then? That because these regulations have not worked, it's now time to ban them? I eluded to it a bit, but is an assault rifle ban going to prevent those gang-banger drive-bys with assault rifles, that are owned illegally anyways?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/3234693
So what are you and/or the OP suggesting then? That because these regulations have not worked, it's now time to ban them? I eluded to it a bit, but is an assault rifle ban going to prevent those gang-banger drive-bys with assault rifles, that are owned illegally anyways?
No more than the "war on drugs" has prevented crack production.
Governments do not have morals, they have interests.
Tax it and be done with it.

 

[wfd1008]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234526
Please. Not the golf club, stick, baseball bat analogy for justifying owning an assault weapon. Which of those 'weapons' could cut someone down 100 yards away with 50 'hits' in 10 seconds?
You've never seen my slice.

 

[jstdv8]

Anyone who boasts about cutting a mule deer in half with a .223 or any other weapon should really refrain from posting in a thread about gun bans.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3234657
I believe I stated that very thing upthread, specifically w/ regard to the Constitutionally provided for amendment process.
I am a little rusty, however. Can you please point out to me where in the Constitution it states the personhood value of an African-American? I know it was alluded to by some of the founders (notably Jefferson) in extraneous writings, but I fail to recall where it was actually included in the document.
Again, Constitutional citation would be appreciated. All I've been able to find is "...well regulated..." It doesn't mention age requirements or limitations as far as I've read.
Article 1, section 2 has the 3/5th nonsense.
The lack of specifically limiting the right to bare arms only to those eligible to serve in the militia is what seals the deal as far the right being bestowed as a individual one rather than collective as some have argued. If the only reason was to allow a militia to be formed they would have limited the right. There are also a whole lot of additional writings from those who wrote and voted for the amendment that list a multitude of reasons for people to be allowed to own guns. Once of the main ones was they distrusted a strong central government and felt people being armed would be a check against tyrannical government actions.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3234688
Size of the round doesn't matter - it's all about kinetic energy. Yes, a .223 is tiny compared to a .45. Muzzle velocity makes up a substantial portion of the difference - 3,200fps for a typical .223 vs. 960fps for a typical .45. You're also comparing a hollow point to a full metal jacket round. Apples, oranges and potatoes.
The 223 isn't designed to be a kill round where the 45 is. That is why they aren't used for sniper riffles where you are looking to take someone out. The idea of the 223 is you take out the person you shot and cause others to render aid to the wounded soldier. 45 is a close quarters round where you want to kill what you shoot.