Then please enlighten me, since you think I'm so clueless. Explain to me the uses for an AR-15. And don't give me the "I don't have to explain anything to you" bull... If you want to stand your ground and tell me and others we don't know what we are talking about, you can at least provide your reasoning and uses for such weapons.

 

 

Clive Bundy

I've said what I have bolded for years. The intent of the 2nd Amendment has to be viewed in the context of the time it was written, in a day when a single shot musket was the most lethal weapon and most households owned at least one. In those days nearly all abled-body men were considered militia, to be ready for battle at any time, or in a 'minute's notice'. I believe the writers were referring to a militia, or national guard, more so than individual ownership. Also, I'm sure they didn't envision the type of rapid fire weapons that we have today. If so they might have been a little more specific.

 

There's no doubt that the amount of guns in a country are directly related to the amount of gun related deaths. I'm talking about developed countries, not Third World. ABC reported on a study in 2013 about this and gave some statistics. The United States has the most gun-related deaths of any developed country in the world. 88.8 per 100 people own guns in the U.S. There's 10.2 gun related deaths per 100,000 people. On the other hand, Japan has .6 people owning guns per 100 people and .06 deaths per 100,000. Canada has 30.8 gun owners per 100 people and 2.44 gun related deaths. The United kingdom has 6.2 owners per 100 and 0.25 per 100,000 deaths by guns. Germany has 30.3 owners per 100 and 1.1 per 100,000 gun deaths. The only country of the 27 deveopled nations studied that came close to the U.S. was South Africa, which had 45.7 gun owners per 100 and 9.41 deaths per 100,000.

 

So, there's little doubt that the amount of guns and gun owners in a country has a direct relations to the gun related deaths. The United States is the leader of the developed world in that category. With that said I understand where the gun owners ( and I am one too, have a shotgun and a handgun) are coming from. The long held interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is what it is. And I don't see it changing anytime soon. However, I do think that as time moves on and weapons get more lethal that regulations have to be updated, reviewed, and implimented. I think the original writers of the 2nd Amendment would agree.

 

Great post with lots of facts...but you left one off. The vast majority of gun deaths in this country are committed by people who are in possession of the gun illegally. They are already breaking the law and a new law or restriction isn't going to stop them it will only hinder law abiding citizens. Gun violence as most of us look at it is committed by career criminals who by law, can not legally possess a firearm. (I'm not talking about mass shootings which are an infinitesimal portion of the actual gun deaths which are a product more of mental health breakdown than it is failing gun laws)

 

The majority of gun deaths perpetrated by legal gun owners are of a domestic crime nature between family members or loved ones, remove guns from that equation and they will go to knives, hammers, baseball bats or whatever is available.

I've said what I have bolded for years. The intent of the 2nd Amendment has to be viewed in the context of the time it was written, in a day when a single shot musket was the most lethal weapon and most households owned at least one. In those days nearly all abled-body men were considered militia, to be ready for battle at any time, or in a 'minute's notice'. I believe the writers were referring to a militia, or national guard, more so than individual ownership. Also, I'm sure they didn't envision the type of rapid fire weapons that we have today. If so they might have been a little more specific.

 

There's no doubt that the amount of guns in a country are directly related to the amount of gun related deaths. I'm talking about developed countries, not Third World. ABC reported on a study in 2013 about this and gave some statistics. The United States has the most gun-related deaths of any developed country in the world. 88.8 per 100 people own guns in the U.S. There's 10.2 gun related deaths per 100,000 people. On the other hand, Japan has .6 people owning guns per 100 people and .06 deaths per 100,000. Canada has 30.8 gun owners per 100 people and 2.44 gun related deaths. The United kingdom has 6.2 owners per 100 and 0.25 per 100,000 deaths by guns. Germany has 30.3 owners per 100 and 1.1 per 100,000 gun deaths. The only country of the 27 deveopled nations studied that came close to the U.S. was South Africa, which had 45.7 gun owners per 100 and 9.41 deaths per 100,000.

 

So, there's little doubt that the amount of guns and gun owners in a country has a direct relations to the gun related deaths. The United States is the leader of the developed world in that category. With that said I understand where the gun owners ( and I am one too, have a shotgun and a handgun) are coming from. The long held interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is what it is. And I don't see it changing anytime soon. However, I do think that as time moves on and weapons get more lethal that regulations have to be updated, reviewed, and implimented. I think the original writers of the 2nd Amendment would agree.

 

By using this logic on what the Founding Fathers could of never expected. Should we restrict the 1st ammendment because there is no way the Founders could have dreamed of DVD's, Television or the internet.

Also, I'm sure they didn't envision the type of rapid fire weapons that we have today. If so they might have been a little more specific.

 

I'm not sure if this is accurate. The first rifles were made by the Chinese which shouldn't be a surprise since they also invented gun powder. This was around the 1300's I believe. They were extremely primitive and required one soldier to hold and aim a long barrel and another soldier to ignite the gun powder. You would basically hope to get of one or two shots on a group of soldiers before having to drop this contraption and pick up your sword and shield for hand to hand combat.

 

Rifles were starting to show up on European battles in the 1400's. While they were better, more efficient and faster loading than what the Chinese were using a century ago, they were still too slow to be a soldiers only weapon, ie a soldier would still carry a sword because the enemy could wait until you fired and know they could charge at you and get to you long before you could reload and fire again.

 

Around the 1700's, technology had advanced enough that most ground troops were no longer issued swords because the amount of time to reload had been shortened enough to no longer need swords. Generally only cavalry and officers had swords.

 

By the time of the Bill of Rights, the earliest modern ammunition cartridges were being fiddled with by craftsmen. The modern cartridge which could be loaded quickly eliminating the need to affix a percussion cap near the hammer, pour gun powder down the barrel, drop the projectile down the barrel and then pack both down to fire. With modern cartridges, the round is simply loaded and the hammer pulled back.

 

The framers of the constitution and Bill of Rights I am sure where aware of these technological advances and knew such advances would continue in the future, these were some pretty smart guys. Another thing, it seems that the framers intended for the people to be armed with arms similar to what a typical soldier would have. There are accounts where private citizens who owned plantations actually having a functioning cannon on the plantation. What the heck they planned on doing with it, I have no idea. I guess during the battle of 1812 with the English, plantation owners wanted to be able to defend their land?

I don't necessarily think it's "wrong," I just understand the premise of not allowing it to happen.

I truly don't. I think there has just been so much fear mongering over the last few decades that people wring their hands waiting for the Armageddon that has been foretold.

I truly don't. I think there has just been so much fear mongering over the last few decades that people wring their hands waiting for the Armageddon that has been foretold.

 

I'm not one that expects that Armageddon, nor do I think everybody with many guns has an agenda.

Then please enlighten me, since you think I'm so clueless. Explain to me the uses for an AR-15. And don't give me the "I don't have to explain anything to you" bull... If you want to stand your ground and tell me and others we don't know what we are talking about, you can at least provide your reasoning and uses for such weapons.

 

LA riots after Rodney King verdict....

 

Business owners and staff and family standing over their buildings guarding them from hundreds of people.

Not to stir the pot...but, just saw this today.

 

What Georgia's 'Extreme' New Gun Law Allows - NBC News

Not to stir the pot...but, just saw this today.

 

What Georgia's 'Extreme' New Gun Law Allows - NBC News

 

Only place I would disagree with on that list is bars. I don't think I'd ever carry mine in most bars.

I'm not sure if this is accurate. The first rifles were made by the Chinese which shouldn't be a surprise since they also invented gun powder. This was around the 1300's I believe. They were extremely primitive and required one soldier to hold and aim a long barrel and another soldier to ignite the gun powder. You would basically hope to get of one or two shots on a group of soldiers before having to drop this contraption and pick up your sword and shield for hand to hand combat.

 

Rifles were starting to show up on European battles in the 1400's. While they were better, more efficient and faster loading than what the Chinese were using a century ago, they were still too slow to be a soldiers only weapon, ie a soldier would still carry a sword because the enemy could wait until you fired and know they could charge at you and get to you long before you could reload and fire again.

 

Around the 1700's, technology had advanced enough that most ground troops were no longer issued swords because the amount of time to reload had been shortened enough to no longer need swords. Generally only cavalry and officers had swords.

 

By the time of the Bill of Rights, the earliest modern ammunition cartridges were being fiddled with by craftsmen. The modern cartridge which could be loaded quickly eliminating the need to affix a percussion cap near the hammer, pour gun powder down the barrel, drop the projectile down the barrel and then pack both down to fire. With modern cartridges, the round is simply loaded and the hammer pulled back.

 

The framers of the constitution and Bill of Rights I am sure where aware of these technological advances and knew such advances would continue in the future, these were some pretty smart guys. Another thing, it seems that the framers intended for the people to be armed with arms similar to what a typical soldier would have. There are accounts where private citizens who owned plantations actually having a functioning cannon on the plantation. What the heck they planned on doing with it, I have no idea. I guess during the battle of 1812 with the English, plantation owners wanted to be able to defend their land?

Bingo. The framers of the constitution were't stupid or shortsighted. The argument that "they never envisioned the kind of weapons of today" always makes me laugh.

 

BTW, Bert, did you get your "care package"?

Only place I would disagree with on that list is bars. I don't think I'd ever carry mine in most bars.

Alcohol and firearms do not mix, no doubt. But I'm wondering if that part of the law is similar to Kentucky and Ohio with bars.

Alcohol and firearms do not mix, no doubt. But I'm wondering if that part of the law is similar to Kentucky and Ohio with bars.

 

Did the General Assembly pass allowing firearms in bars?

BTW, Bert, did you get your "care package"?

 

Yes I did, I have been meaning to thank you, especially for the extras you through in.

Did the General Assembly pass allowing firearms in bars?

Sorry, I'm not sure so I jumped the gun (pun intended) on calling it a law in Kentucky.

 

Yes I did, I have been meaning to thank you, especially for the extras you through in.

:thumb: No problem, just wanted to make sure you got them.

Chicago Crime & Murder Stats 2014

 

April To Date

Shot & Killed: 22

Shot & Wounded: 162

Total Homicides: 22

 

Week in Progress (Sun – Sat)

Shot & Killed: 4

Shot & Wounded: 33

Total Homicides: 4

 

Year To Date Totals

Shot & Killed: 76

Shot & Wounded: 402

Total Homicides: 95