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

Agreed. That is a very practical and factual statement. However, Leatherneck, breaking away from being clearly practical, do you feel like there is currently any control legislated in our country that already has broken the second amendment? I know thirty round bannana clips aren't necessary, I just feel like the Constitution has provided that I should be allowed to own them.

Agreed. That is a very practical and factual statement. However, Leatherneck, breaking away from being clearly practical, do you feel like there is currently any control legislated in our country that already has broken the second amendment? I know thirty round bannana clips aren't necessary, I just feel like the Constitution has provided that I should be allowed to own them.

 

 

As a libertarian at heart, I generally oppose govt telling me what I can and cannot do. I accept regulations only when it is absolutely necessary to protect a legitimate societal goal AND the regulation will actually accomplish that goal. Accordingly, I am opposed to the ban on large capacity clips. There is zero proof that it would deter people from killing other people and I know that banning them will not slow down a crazed lunatic firing a weapon.

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

To really hit home about pump shotguns, Tom Knapp (staff shooter for Benelli) can throw up 9 clay pigeons and shoot all nine before they hit the ground. And that is with a pump shotgun.

The two greatest mass murders in American history were carried out with box cutters, pocket knives, fertilizer and diesel fuel. Not a gun or bullet in sight.

 

The tragedy at Virginia Tech is horrible and sad.

 

The fact that it is already being used as a political football is sad as well.

 

Stricter gun control is no more a solution to this problem than Kleenex are a cure for the common cold.

 

The problem lies in the hearts and minds of humans.

To really hit home about pump shotguns, Tom Knapp (staff shooter for Benelli) can throw up 9 clay pigeons and shoot all nine before they hit the ground. And that is with a pump shotgun.

Good point Woodsrider. However, you could give me that fully automatic shotgun that they just had on futureweapons and I couldn't keep up with the speed or accuracy of Tom Knapp.

Good point Woodsrider. However, you could give me that fully automatic shotgun that they just had on futureweapons and I couldn't keep up with the speed or accuracy of Tom Knapp.

He is definitely the extreme other side but and example of what can be done with a weapon that most pro gun control folks would not consider a need to ban.

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

Absolutely fantastic post, LN, and all 100% factual. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

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.

 

Lets take this loose constructionist view of the Constitution, and ply it with the Socratic method. If you believe that the "reasonableness" of the type of arms changes with the times, then you probably would also concede that the "reasonableness" of the type of arms used in one's own defense must also change to comport with the times. In 1776, a well-regulated militia could reasonably expect to use rifles and muskets in their own defense. In 2007, since there are lunatics running around with automatic weapons killing innocents, then I can assume you would agree that we should be able to defend ourselves with automatic weapons?

Its amazing to me that when ever I hear the news people talk about guns, many times I hear them say, "With a semi-automatic, as long as you hold the trigger down, bullets will come out." So clueless.

With what happened at VTECH I sure hope it does not change gun laws. That would be stupid. If anything, 9/11 and VTECH has once again taught us that the police can not be around 24/7. If ONLY a few of those 30 murdered students had CCW's and were carrying on that day, I guarantee you there would have been a much different outcome. It sounds like this kid LEGALLY purchased his guns. And he was using two relatively smaller pistols. I actually have the same exact Glock he used. The other one I believe was a Walther, which is a little smaller gun. These are standard compact pistols. Everyone is making it out like he had an AK-47 or an M4A1, which is clearly not the case. He was using semi-auto pistols, not assault rifles. I am not a fan of assault rifles on the streets, but to try to take away pistols would be rediculous. If anything they should bring the laws down and teach people to protect themselves better. It is YOUR choice to be the predator or the prey. You can call 911 but you better hope you can dodge bullets until they get there.

 

This guy was a pyschopath. If they would have looked at the warning signs he was giving, this could have been prevented. People like this kill, it has happened before, and it will happen again. The innocent people who died were simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

With what happened at VTECH I sure hope it does not change gun laws. That would be stupid. If anything, 9/11 and VTECH has once again taught us that the police can not be around 24/7. If ONLY a few of those 30 murdered students had CCW's and were carrying on that day, I guarantee you there would have been a much different outcome. It sounds like this kid LEGALLY purchased his guns. And he was using two relatively smaller pistols. I actually have the same exact Glock he used. The other one I believe was a Walther, which is a little smaller gun. These are standard compact pistols. Everyone is making it out like he had an AK-47 or an M4A1, which is clearly not the case. He was using semi-auto pistols, not assault rifles. I am not a fan of assault rifles on the streets, but to try to take away pistols would be rediculous. If anything they should bring the laws down and teach people to protect themselves better. It is YOUR choice to be the predator or the prey. You can call 911 but you better hope you can dodge bullets until they get there.

 

This guy was a pyschopath. If they would have looked at the warning signs he was giving, this could have been prevented. People like this kill, it has happened before, and it will happen again. The innocent people who died were simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Totally agree, but too often people just don't get it and think gun control is the answer. The only thing that will do is leave law abiding citizens totally vulnerable, but yet the anti-gun people just don't seem to understand that.

Lets take this loose constructionist view of the Constitution, and ply it with the Socratic method. If you believe that the "reasonableness" of the type of arms changes with the times, then you probably would also concede that the "reasonableness" of the type of arms used in one's own defense must also change to comport with the times. In 1776, a well-regulated militia could reasonably expect to use rifles and muskets in their own defense. In 2007, since there are lunatics running around with automatic weapons killing innocents, then I can assume you would agree that we should be able to defend ourselves with automatic weapons?

A couple of points. First, I'm not sure that there is any reasonable type of gun control that would have prevented Virginia Tech. Second, I am much more interested in registration of weapons and ammunition and regulating the sale of weapons than I am eliminating a particular type of weapon. I don't know enough about weapons to make an informed judgement on weapon types. I do think that it is a losing proposition to make a list of banned weapons. Clever people will find a way around the list as fast as it is made. There are no doubt weapons that I would ban from private ownership, lets start with nukes and work down from there, but I'm not sure what that list would include.

 

I don't see where it is an imposition on anyone to wait a couple of days for a background check. I don't see where it is an imposition to require registration of gun sales at least as stringent as automobiles. I don't see why it is an imposition to track ammunition.

A couple of points. First, I'm not sure that there is any reasonable type of gun control that would have prevented Virginia Tech. Second, I am much more interested in registration of weapons and ammunition and regulating the sale of weapons than I am eliminating a particular type of weapon. I don't know enough about weapons to make an informed judgement on weapon types. I do think that it is a losing proposition to make a list of banned weapons. Clever people will find a way around the list as fast as it is made. There are no doubt weapons that I would ban from private ownership, lets start with nukes and work down from there, but I'm not sure what that list would include.

 

I don't see where it is an imposition on anyone to wait a couple of days for a background check. I don't see where it is an imposition to require registration of gun sales at least as stringent as automobiles. I don't see why it is an imposition to track ammunition.

I would agree with you that a background check is not a form of gun control, and is very reasonable. Please describe what you mean by tracking ammunition, what would be the process and what would it entail? BTW, background checks are now done immediately with call ins to the FBI. You don't even have to wait.

I don't mind a waiting period or background checks with multiple forms of IDs.

Everyone can get a fake ID's.

 

The background check should probably look for more then just a criminal record.

 

Putting yourself in one of those students position and most of us would wish we had a gun instead of being unarmed and helpless.

 

Guns on campus is a tough one, though.

Easy to say more accidents could happen if they were more prevalent.

I would agree with you that a background check is not a form of gun control, and is very reasonable. Please describe what you mean by tracking ammunition, what would be the process and what would it entail? BTW, background checks are now done immediately with call ins to the FBI. You don't even have to wait.

I am not an expert in the field, but it is my understanding that micro tracers are available for ammunition. Tracking would also require tracking the sale. If you tracked the sale and the use through the tracers, I suspect it would make solving gun crime a little easier. Would it solve all problems? Of course not. It is also my understanding that gun show sales are outside background check process. Is that still the case?