CDZ I do not understand the fascination with and demand for semi-automatic rifles

[FA_Q2]

I would say you have a point IF we have the same caliber of weaponry as we did a century ago but we don’t. Our guns have become increasingling more lethal and to kill more people in a shorter amount of time. Laws governing them need to reflect those changes.

And your point would be moot as, one, the tools are simply not relevant and, two, we already have rules that government modern firearm's to deal with the difference in weaponry between the founding and now. Does a law on fully automatic weapons make any sense 250 years ago?

A microphone did not exist 250 years ago either. That does not mean speech using a microphone is suddenly no longer protected.

Public safety and the rights of others have always been a counterbalance to the exercise of individual rights.



See above.

For what Coyote? A heading? A news article title? Because that is all you have given me thus far. Public safety is not a justification, it is catagory that you justification would belong under. We are still waiting for the actual justification.

I agree, speech can be dangerous, and that is why there are restrictions. However, unlike weaponry, there is a hell of a lot of grey area. The bar is very high when it comes to regulating or limiting any of our rights (and I agree it should be high). Part of tbe problem I have with gun rights advocates though is they oppose any regulation (unlike any other rights) even to the point prohibiting funding to study gun violence.

I will not argue with the asinine restriction on research, should have never happened. That is beside the point.

You cannot point to any real advocates with any real power that advocate for no restrictions.

What you continually ignored with this line of thought is that there are THOUSANDS of gun regulations on the books right now. There are restrictions all over the place in every single level of government. The statement "they oppose any regulation (unlike any other rights)" is simply false. For the most part, they oppose any MORE restrictions on gun rights and they are correct. The restrictions as they stand right now are higher than they should be. one only really needs to look at the last time we tried to ban assault weapons and had zero effect on crime or death or when we lifted those bans and seen... well zero effect on crime or death. The data is in, further restrictions and even fewer than we have right now does not lead to a reduction in crime or death.

One example of what I think is a dangerous extreme is the push for a universal concealed carry with no license, no training and in some cases you don’t have to be an adult. This one where one area where safety should trump that right.

You may think it is dangerous. What you think is irrelevant to the infringement on a right. Show WHY that is 'extreme' because almost all of the problem I have with gun control advocates is that they generally push measures that are utterly ineffective, based almost entirely on emotion and designed to make it look like the politicians are doing something when they are not. Every time gun control comes up it is wrapped in some recent shooting, proposes it is direly needed because of that tragedy and then does nothing that would actually address the incident it is supposedly based on.

 

[Coyote]

Murder is illegal. What else you want?

I’m sure the murder victims rejoice from from the grave.

 

[Coyote]

And your point would be moot as, one, the tools are simply not relevant and, two, we already have rules that government modern firearm's to deal with the difference in weaponry between the founding and now. Does a law on fully automatic weapons make any sense 250 years ago?

The tools are relevant, not sure why you say they aren’t particularly when you say we already rules for it. IMO, rules need regularly revisited and modified or discarded as relevan.

A microphone did not exist 250 years ago either. That does not mean speech using a microphone is suddenly no longer protected.

Directly comparing each of the rights is hard because are so different from each other. Here is a better examp,e regarding free speech and relevant because it is a topic today, and that the internet and social media. Where as a persons words once took months to become “viral” now it is a matter of minutes with disinformation and outright lies spreading faster than the truth can keep up with. And that has challenged us to reconsider the extents and limits of free speech. That is a pretty good example compare with modern military grade guns.

For what Coyote? A heading? A news article title? Because that is all you have given me thus far. Public safety is not a justification, it is catagory that you justification would belong under. We are still waiting for the actual justification.

Actually public IS very much a justification. It is why we have laws on speech that incites a riot or yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre or why free speech doesn’t allow you to make false claims on the latest snake oil cure.

I will not argue with the asinine restriction on research, should have never happened. That is beside the point.

You cannot point to any real advocates with any real power that advocate for no restrictions.

Ya…there are those who do. But I agree. It is kind of like abortion, most favor some restrictions. The question is to what extent and why?

What you continually ignored with this line of thought is that there are THOUSANDS of gun regulations on the books right now. There are restrictions all over the place in every single level of government. The statement "they oppose any regulation (unlike any other rights)" is simply false. For the most part, they oppose any MORE restrictions on gun rights and they are correct. The restrictions as they stand right now are higher than they should be. one only really needs to look at the last time we tried to ban assault weapons and had zero effect on crime or death or when we lifted those bans and seen... well zero effect on crime or death. The data is in, further restrictions and even fewer than we have right now does not lead to a reduction in crime or death.
You may think it is dangerous. What you think is irrelevant to the infringement on a right. Show WHY that is 'extreme' because almost all of the problem I have with gun control advocates is that they generally push measures that are utterly ineffective, based almost entirely on emotion and designed to make it look like the politicians are doing something when they are not. Every time gun control comes up it is wrapped in some recent shooting, proposes it is direly needed because of that tragedy and then does nothing that would actually address the incident it is supposedly based on.

A lot of what you are claiming vis a vis crime rates and gun laws is arguable, but that is argued in a lot of threads already.

Here is what I think is reasonable.

1. In order to own a gun, a person must show he knows how to safely handle and store a firearm, how to maintain it, and be able to hit what he is aiming at. It is so basic it’s laughable. We demand similar from another potentially lethal, a car.

2. A national gun registry. This would help with tracking stolen weapons at the very least.

3. Concealed carry is not a right. It is a privilege. And it makes a job that much more dangerous for police. It should require a permit and something to show the person is responsible and knowledgeable.

4. Firearm safety and responsibility should be taught in schools along with drivers Ed.

5. Some guns, like machine guns, are and should highly restricted.

The right does specify what kind of arms we can bare.

 

[Coyote]

You are painting with a very broad brush, but I get your point.

Here is the Army issue sidearm from a century ago, and I have one of those.
If you think that the SIG or Glock is anymore lethal, I say that they are not.

View attachment 550978

https://www.gunsamerica.com/userimages/5212/903534743/wm_9339343.jpg

In a Constitutional Carry state, the citizens must be lawfully carrying, and the cops are free to frisk anyone that they choose.

What is it that you think is going to happen, with people carrying concealed, than what has happened already? There is mayhem already, that’s the reason people want to carry concealed. With or without a permit.

I think what will happen is when anyone can carry a concealed weapon (I refuse to call Constitutional, it is simply concealed carry) then the police will have to deal with any interaction with the assumption has a gun. We already have problems with people being shot because police think they have a weapon and police are already on edge.

 

[justinacolmena]

That said, it seems to me that the only legitimate civilian uses of rifles are for sport -- hunting and target shooting

Other uses of rifles (self-defense etc.) are arguably militant or military in nature, rather than strictly civilian, but that should in no wise detract from our right to keep and bear such arms, as laid down in the Constitution.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I’m sure the murder victims rejoice from from the grave.

Outlawing murder and prosecuting the murderers is literally all that can be done.

 

[westwall]

I’m sure the murder victims rejoice from from the grave.

The people killed in areas where they are not allowed the means to defend themselves, are pissed.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I think what will happen is when anyone can carry a concealed weapon (I refuse to call Constitutional, it is simply concealed carry) then the police will have to deal with any interaction with the assumption has a gun. We already have problems with people being shot because police think they have a weapon and police are already on edge.

We already have that in Arizona. The only thing that happens is that the first question you are asked when in contact with a cop is "are you armed". If yes, they take the gun temporarily for everyone's protection and return it at the end of the contact. If you say no, they just go ahead, but if they find a gun or knife when they search you, you go to jail. It's been that way for years and a lot of people carry concealed or openly. Of the fifteen people I ride motorcycles with, at least three carry firearms all the time and most of the rest of us carry useful sized (one to four inch blades) knives in our pockets. I have a CCW permit even though they aren't required anymore, but I rarely carry unless I'm going somewhere especially dangerous or doing something that would attract a criminal like taking a large sum out of the bank.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here is what I think is reasonable.
1. In order to own a gun, a person must show he knows how to safely handle and store a firear...

This is no different than a literacy test for voting.

2. A national gun registry. This would help with tracking stolen weapons at the very least.

It is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for, and the efficacy of, the state to have on record the owne of every gun in its jurisdiction.

3. Concealed carry is not a right. It is a privilege. And it makes a job that much more dangerous for police. It should require a permit and something to show the person is responsible and knowledgeable.

The facty ou will never get all of the states to agree to this aside...
So long as all 50+states recognize and accept as their own the permits from each of the other 50+ states.
(By "+" I mean the territories and DC as well)

4. Firearm safety and responsibility should be taught in schools along with drivers Ed.

5. Some guns, like machine guns, are and should highly restricted.

For now, anyway.

The right does specify what kind of arms we can bare.

Absent specifics, the default is "all"

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think what will happen is when anyone can carry a concealed weapon (I refuse to call Constitutional, it is simply concealed carry) then the police will have to deal with any interaction with the assumption has a gun.

21 states have constitutional carry.
Can you demonstrate the issues this has caused during these interactions with police?
Or do you just assume there is an issue?

 

[AZrailwhale]

This is no different than a literacy test for voting.

It is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for, and the efficacy of, the state to have on record the owne of every gun in its jurisdiction.

The facty ou will never get all of the states to agree to this aside...
So long as all 50+states recognize and accept as their own the permits from each of the other 50+ states.
(By "+" I mean the territories and DC as well)



For now, anyway.

Absent specifics, the default is "all"

Something just occurred to me, under the terms of Miller, the 1934 Firearms act could be overturned since fully auto weapons are commonly used by the military.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Something just occurred to me, under the terms of Miller, the 1934 Firearms act could be overturned since fully auto weapons are commonly used by the military.

The anti-gun is fortunate that Miller died before his case could go to trial.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Something just occurred to me, under the terms of Miller, the 1934 Firearms act could be overturned since fully auto weapons are commonly used by the military.

I've made note of that, in the past.

 

[GLASNOST]

The natural right that exists here is defense, by the use of guns.
....

Then it is also a "natural right" (your words, not mine) for a criminal to defend him-herself by the use of guns too.

Robber: "You see, your honour, I entered the deceased home with the intent of carrying out my duty as a burglar ... nothing more than that. But then the home-owner confronted me with an object, the type of which I could not decern in the dark".

Defence lawyer: "As you can clearly see, your honour, my client acted in self-defence by his natural right to defend himself with a gun."

Judge: "I concur. Release the accused, baillif."

What do you think those pistols are? Spell it out for me.

Pistols are short-barreled objects that jettison metal, so-called "bullets" by a controlled explosion, the sole purpose (read, only purpose or exclusive purpose) of which is to put holes in anything (or anyone) it is pointed at. Rifles are long-barreled objects serving the very same purpose.

Any more questions?

 

[GLASNOST]

It's part and parcel to the natural right of self defense.

A very silly response. There is nothing "natural" in a gun and there is most certainly nothing about owning one that can be considered a "natural right". This is basic 101 communication of conveying words and vocabulary.

A big 20 something man can crush an 80 year old woman. Thus her only self defense option is a gun.

Are you intentionally lying or are you just so deeply caught up in your own rhetoric that you cannot think straight?

 

[GLASNOST]

Outlawing murder and prosecuting the murderers is literally all that can be done.

Outlawing gun ownership & gun manufacture, and prosecuting owners of guns can be done in conjunction with your above suggestion. So, no ..... what you've said is NOT "all that can be done".

 

[Markle]

A nuke is not an "arm."

I know you aren't that stupid.

It's not? Why then was it called the Nucular ARMS Race?

 

[westwall]

Then it is also a "natural right" (your words, not mine) for a criminal to defend him-herself by the use of guns too.

Robber: "You see, your honour, I entered the deceased home with the intent of carrying out my duty as a burglar ... nothing more than that. But then the home-owner confronted me with an object, the type of which I could not decern in the dark".

Defence lawyer: "As you can clearly see, your honour, my client acted in self-defence by his natural right to defend himself with a gun."

Judge: "I concur. Release the accused, baillif."



Pistols are short-barreled objects that jettison metal, so-called "bullets" by a controlled explosion, the sole purpose (read, only purpose or exclusive purpose) of which is to put holes in anything (or anyone) it is pointed at. Rifles are long-barreled objects serving the very same purpose.

Any more questions?

No, it's not you ridiculous silly person. A robber is ATTACKING. The victim is not seeking confrontation. The robber is.

Thus, if the robber gets killed, too bad. Live by the sword, die by it.

 

[westwall]

A very silly response. There is nothing "natural" in a gun and there is most certainly nothing about owning one that can be considered a "natural right". This is basic 101 communication of conveying words and vocabulary.


Are you intentionally lying or are you just so deeply caught up in your own rhetoric that you cannot think straight?

All of mother Natures critters have means to defend themselves. You simply hate that evil people can't simply run roughshod over the innocent.

I hope you find yourself in a situation where you are the victim of a crime.

Though I think you are the predator.

 

[GLASNOST]

No, it's not you ridiculous silly person. A robber is ATTACKING. The victim is not seeking confrontation. The robber is.

Thus, if the robber gets killed, too bad. Live by the sword, die by it.

How did you manage to be so wrong so quickly?

A robber never sets out to attack anyone. Maybe you should look up the definition of the term "robber", huh?

Your fundamental problem is a total lack of knowledge and is typical of people who like to quote popular sayings without understanding what they mean. Robbers do not live by a sword or any other weapon. His tools of the trade are nimble fingers.

All of mother Natures critters have means to defend themselves. You simply hate that evil people can't simply run roughshod over the innocent.

I hope you find yourself in a situation where you are the victim of a crime.

Though I think you are the predator.

Guns are not natural means of defence but if you insist on thinking of them as such then criminals have the same needs.

How silly you are. You're about 16-years-old, right?

My list of situations in life includes being a war veteran where victims of crimes were everyday occurrences on both sides. I'm pretty sure I know much more about it than you.

Why are you so silly? Maybe you're not more than 12?