Gun Control

[94 Camel]

Since KY. and other states have allowed people to have permits to carry concealed weapons no wild west type shootings have occurred. So the argument should be that if someone with a weapon could have taken out the killer.

 

Do not try to argue back that they would be shootouts all over the place. As I said nothing like this has happened as the people who get these permits are checked out.

I know there wouldn't be shootouts. I also know that the violent crime rate has dropped in every state that has adopted the concealed carry law. However, that is not my point. My point is that gun control should constitutionally be a mute issue, without a new amendment.

[Run To State]

Folks, there are more than enough gun laws in place already, we don't need more. We need to simply enforce the ones we already have.

There is too much ignorance out there about guns, nothing worse than knee jerk reactions to something we fear because we aren't properly educated about them. A lot of the gun laws we now have are because of such reactions.

BTW, the media should really check into things before they report them. There was a woman reporter that said the shooter at VT was armed with a 9mm and a 22mm gun. That's one heck of a gun.

[94 Camel]

Folks, there are more than enough gun laws in place already, we don't need more. We need to simply enforce the ones we already have.

There is too much ignorance out there about guns, nothing worse than knee jerk reactions to something we fear because we aren't properly educated about them. A lot of the gun laws we now have are because of such reactions.

BTW, the media should really check into things before they report them. There was a woman reporter that said the shooter at VT was armed with a 9mm and a 22mm gun. That's one heck of a gun.

A 22mm? Was the shooter flying a modified Warthog? As stated earlier Run, I firmly believe that it is completely Unconstitutional for there to be ANY type of gun control. That is, without a new Amendment.

[Trinity alum]

I could have assumed the next retort coach. We already have control in place. If we follwed our forefather's intensions, we would be able to own an RPG. Instead, we deam that some weapons shouldn't be owned by the public for domestic security. This goes against the intention of the second amendment. However, an RPG is not a gun. It is an explosives projectile weapon. Do I think the public should be able to own all types of firearms, yes. I think the public should be able to own all types of firearms as much as you have the right to free speech, a trial by jury, and no illegal search and seisure.

The second amendment doesn't mention guns, it says arms. If the purpose of the second amendment is to allow the people, when necessary, to overthrow an oppressive government, logic dictates that the second amendment would allow the people to be as well armed as the government. The government owns strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. Does the second amendment require that we have no restrictions on nuclear weapons? If the "well regulated" clause of the second amendment allows us to regulate nuclear arms, where is the line?

[94 Camel]

The second amendment doesn't mention guns, it says arms. If the purpose of the second amendment is to allow the people, when necessary, to overthrow an oppressive government, logic dictates that the second amendment would allow the people to be as well armed as the government. The government owns strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. Does the second amendment require that we have no restrictions on nuclear weapons? If the "well regulated" clause of the second amendment allows us to regulate nuclear arms, where is the line?

What did the term arms refer to during the writing of the Constitution? Do you or do you not agree that the 2nd amendment clause was written to limit government oppression? If you agree, then you must agree that gun control is uncostitutional without a change in the Constitution.

[Run To State]

A 22mm? Was the shooter flying a modified Warthog? As stated earlier Run, I firmly believe that it is completely Unconstitutional for there to be ANY type of gun control. That is, without a new Amendment.

:lol: :thumb: That's what I'm talking about, they have no clue.

I firmly believe the public should be allowed to conceal carry in more places then currently allowed.

[PepRock01]

Folks, there are more than enough gun laws in place already, we don't need more. We need to simply enforce the ones we already have.

There is too much ignorance out there about guns, nothing worse than knee jerk reactions to something we fear because we aren't properly educated about them. A lot of the gun laws we now have are because of such reactions.

BTW, the media should really check into things before they report them. There was a woman reporter that said the shooter at VT was armed with a 9mm and a 22mm gun. That's one heck of a gun.

 

A 22mm huh? WOW!!! That's bigger than a Desert Eagle! The .50 cal is only a 13.7 mm round in comparison. The shot must have torn his wrist clean off! Boy must have been HUGE!!!!! :walk:

[PepRock01]

A 22mm? Was the shooter flying a modified Warthog? As stated earlier Run, I firmly believe that it is completely Unconstitutional for there to be ANY type of gun control. That is, without a new Amendment.

 

The Warthog's Avenger is 30mm. The closest would be the 20mm Vulcan.

[PepRock01]

:lol: :thumb: That's what I'm talking about, they have no clue.

I firmly believe the public should be allowed to conceal carry in more places then currently allowed.

 

 

At the same time though, it is the right of the business establishments and owners of such places to say that it cannot be carried in their place. :thumb:

[94 Camel]

The Warthog's Avenger is 30mm. The closest would be the 20mm Vulcan.

I apologize. I forgot that a warthog had a 30mm, I thought it had a 20mm. Either way though, I am safe.:thumb: I did say modified, since there is no 22mm that I am aware of.

[Run To State]

At the same time though, it is the right of the business establishments and owners of such places to say that it cannot be carried in their place. :thumb:

Agreed, but why would you want to tell everyone your business is an easy mark?

[BigColonel]

Nothing. Reguardless of gun control, if you want a firearm bad enough, you can get one.

[Trinity alum]

What did the term arms refer to during the writing of the Constitution? Do you or do you not agree that the 2nd amendment clause was written to limit government oppression? If you agree, then you must agree that gun control is uncostitutional without a change in the Constitution.

During the writing of the constitution, arms meant cannons and single shot muskets and rifles. Is it okay to regulate everything else? I think that it is arguable that limiting government oppression was one possibliity. But I suspect that it is more likely that the well regulated militia clause referred to collective defense against whatever source. The citizen militia was an important part of state and national defense at a time when we had little or no standing army. For what it is worth, I don't think that there is anything in the second amendment to prevent reasonable regulation of arms. What is reasonable may change with time and location. You still haven't answered my questions about regulation of arms. In your opinion, is it constitutional to regulate any arms? If so, where is the line.

[94 Camel]

During the writing of the constitution, arms meant cannons and single shot muskets and rifles. Is it okay to regulate everything else? I think that it is arguable that limiting government oppression was one possibliity. But I suspect that it is more likely that the well regulated militia clause referred to collective defense against whatever source. The citizen militia was an important part of state and national defense at a time when we had little or no standing army. For what it is worth, I don't think that there is anything in the second amendment to prevent reasonable regulation of arms. What is reasonable may change with time and location. You still haven't answered my questions about regulation of arms. In your opinion, is it constitutional to regulate any arms? If so, where is the line.

I think the Second Amendment clearly states that citizens have the right to remain armed in the fashion of a reasonable militia. Therefore, any type of restriction that would keep citizents from being armed the same as a basic soldier should be prohibited IMO. This would include shoulder weapons and pistols, grenades, and so on. This obviously doesn't apply to weapons that would not be found in militia use, such as aircraft, armor, and so on. There are obviously limitations. I personally don't think that the framers of our constitution ever intended for its citizens to not be able to own ths same shoulder weapons as its military. However, it also didn't indicate that every citizen should own an artillery piece either. For the most part, we can own the same shoulder weapons as our military, we just have to apply for special licenses. I am POSITIVE that a limitation on magazine capacity goes against the very principle of Amendment two.

[leatherneck]

Should it? If it is an automatic or semi-automatic weapon that has no hunting purpose whatsoever, the uproar will be huge.

 

Dem Presidential candidates might jump on the bandwagon and try to ride it into the White House, while Rep candidates play the NRA card.

 

It plays out right and it could be an issue like the Gay Marriage amendments were in 2004.

 

 

First of all, lets get some misconceptions about guns cleared up. Fully automatic weapons are already very heavily and closely regulated. To purchase or own an automatic weapon you must purchase a specific license from BATF. Those licenses are expensive and are not easy to obtain. There are very few automatic weapons out there.

 

Second, many, many hunting weapons are semi automatic weapon. Lots and I mean lots of people use semi's to duck, goose and upland game hunt. Many also use semi's to go clay pigeon and trap shooting.

 

 

The whole brouhaha over assault weapons years ago was nothing more than silliness. What people called assault weapons was based much more on appearance than functuality. They banned large round magazines (more than 10 rounds) for a while. Sorry folks, but anyone who spends about 30 minutes practicing can learn to replace a 5 capacity magazine with another one in about 2 seconds. Banning big capacity mags was another in a series of "feel good" measures that only appeased those folks ignorant about guns.

 

In this case the killer supposedly used semi automatic pistols. I regularly use semi automatic pistols to target shoot and carry them on me for personal protection. Some people use semi automatic pistols to hunt deer, boars and other big game. There are many legitimate uses of semi automatic pistols, both for hunting and otherwise. Furthermore, as my friend Run To State can attest, they make speed loaders for revolvers. Banning semi pistols won't make anyone safer. Criminals will just bring them accross the border illegally or they will start using revolvers with speed loaders. Gun controls will not stop this type of carnage; not a lot, not a little, not one iota.

 

If they banned semi automatic shotguns and I really wanted to kill a bunch of people, a pump shotgun, illegally cut down would be quite effective. And trust me, a person with a little practice can reload a pump shotgun very quickly. Point made is that banning semis or fully automatic weapons won't do a thing to make people safer, but it sure will infringe on people's rights