Should these be included in an assault weapons ban?

[theDoctorisIn]

In 1996 Congress tried an Assault Weapons ban. The NRA got involved and cosmetics were on the table. Detachable stocks, bayonet mounts, grips, flash suppressors.

Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".

So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?

And the Second Amendment isn't about some mouth breathers 'need' to assault what he perceives as an oppressive government. The first phrase of the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" Well regulated means precisely that: well regulated. Weapons designed for warfare belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on the streets.

Let Americans shoot. Let them have bolt action rifles. Let them have revolvers. But why on earth should a private citizen operate a weapons designed for open warfare? Calls to arm teachers and putting more guns on the streets is tantamount to a mini arms race with the health and safety of the public in the balance.

Sanity and reason are tossed out when pro gun advocates cloud the argument with nonsense like "gun control takes away your rights". You should have no more right to own a tank or a battleship or a thermonuclear weapon than any other weapon designed for open warfare.

Every weapon ever made is designed for open warfare. Spestznaz made shovels into one of the most dangerous things ever carried into battle. Should we ban shovels?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0McQ-cQmUZA]Special Forces Shovel : Cold Steel Throwing Shovel - YouTube[/ame]

I have one of those shovels.

Never been that good at throwing it, though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In 1996 Congress tried an Assault Weapons ban. The NRA got involved and cosmetics were on the table. Detachable stocks, bayonet mounts, grips, flash suppressors.

Gun control isn't about taking all guns out of the hands the citizens. It should be about taking the "mass" out of "mass shootings".

So, let's talk about high capacity magazines and semi automatic firing systems. Those two developments make "mass shootings" possible. Five, six, seven rounds pumped into victims at Sandy Hook. Why? What's the virtue of such weapons?

And the Second Amendment isn't about some mouth breathers 'need' to assault what he perceives as an oppressive government. The first phrase of the Second Amendment calls for a "well regulated militia" Well regulated means precisely that: well regulated. Weapons designed for warfare belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on the streets.

Let Americans shoot. Let them have bolt action rifles. Let them have revolvers. But why on earth should a private citizen operate a weapons designed for open warfare? Calls to arm teachers and putting more guns on the streets is tantamount to a mini arms race with the health and safety of the public in the balance.

Sanity and reason are tossed out when pro gun advocates cloud the argument with nonsense like "gun control takes away your rights". You should have no more right to own a tank or a battleship or a thermonuclear weapon than any other weapon designed for open warfare.

Every weapon ever made is designed for open warfare. Spestznaz made shovels into one of the most dangerous things ever carried into battle. Should we ban shovels?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0McQ-cQmUZA"]Special Forces Shovel : Cold Steel Throwing Shovel - YouTube[/ame]

I have one of those shovels.

Never been that good at throwing it, though.

I hear it takes lots of practice.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Every weapon ever made is designed for open warfare. Spestznaz made shovels into one of the most dangerous things ever carried into battle. Should we ban shovels?

Special Forces Shovel : Cold Steel Throwing Shovel - YouTube

I have one of those shovels.

Never been that good at throwing it, though.

I hear it takes lots of practice.

Yeah, it's not easy. I've pretty much destroyed a large section of fence in my backyard with it already, "practicing".

 

[Rinata]

I get you think that's really clever. In fact, you highlight your ignorance.

A "well regulated" militia referred to the fact that the states would appoint officers for the militia. The second regulation was that all able bodied men in the state were required to keep and maintain arms, such as to be always able to call forth a militia on an instant's notice.

Here's a better question: How has the very obvious and well documented context of the second amendment, and the founding fathers' clear intentions become forgotten? How as "everybody NEEDS a gun because you can't trust the government" been twisted into "you don't really need a gun because you can trust the government"?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/271057-gun-control-just-like-the-founders-intended-it.html

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What does "well regulated" mean? In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

What is the mechanism by which "proper discipline and training" is provided to members of this militia? How well disciplined was Adam Lanza? James Holmes? Jared Loughner? Cho Seung Hui?

Until this so-called militia is being adequately regulated, the purported right of the people to keep and bear arms MUST be infringed. If it is not regulated (or infringed upon), such a militia actually undermines and threatens the security of the state.

Daily Kos: What IS a well-regulated militia?

What does "well regulated" mean?

How many times are you going to ask this question?

I didn't ask the question, you dope!!! It was part of the article I posted.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have one of those shovels.

Never been that good at throwing it, though.

I hear it takes lots of practice.

Yeah, it's not easy. I've pretty much destroyed a large section of fence in my backyard with it already, "practicing".

I saw a move years ago of Sestnaz troops showing of for some American special forces people. They were decapitating dummies and using underhanded throws to cut down small trees with those things. It still boggles my mind.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What does "well regulated" mean? In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

What is the mechanism by which "proper discipline and training" is provided to members of this militia? How well disciplined was Adam Lanza? James Holmes? Jared Loughner? Cho Seung Hui?

Until this so-called militia is being adequately regulated, the purported right of the people to keep and bear arms MUST be infringed. If it is not regulated (or infringed upon), such a militia actually undermines and threatens the security of the state.

Daily Kos: What IS a well-regulated militia?

What does "well regulated" mean?

How many times are you going to ask this question?

I didn't ask the question, you dope!!! It was part of the article I posted.

So tell me what does well regulated mean to you?

 

[zeke]

I hear it takes lots of practice.

Yeah, it's not easy. I've pretty much destroyed a large section of fence in my backyard with it already, "practicing".

I saw a move years ago of Sestnaz troops showing of for some American special forces people. They were decapitating dummies and using underhanded throws to cut down small trees with those things. It still boggles my mind.

You want to equate the danger of a shovel to the danger of a semi auto rifle with thirty round clips.

Wasn't that the premise of the thread?

And both of you are saying it takes lots of practice to kill something/anything with the shovel. That about what you are saying?

So tell me, how much practice does it take to shove a magazine in an AR15 and start being able to kill things? Does it take 3 min, 5 min, why I bet even a stupid teenager could figure out how to fire an AR15 a lot quicker than he could use your fuking shovel.

You gun nuts are a joke.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Until this so-called militia is being adequately regulated, the purported right of the people to keep and bear arms MUST be infringed.

First of all, on what basis do you say that there is no such training? In case you missed it, most states already require some kind of safety training.

Second, even that aside, the constitution does not predicate the people's right to bear arms upon such regulation. Quite the reverse, the constitution preserves the right to bear arms AS A MEANS TOWARD THE END OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING ABLE TO EXIST.

What you are suggesting is on line with saying that free speech must be infringed upon until the people are educated (or the vote for that matter). Or that 4th amendment rights must be infringed upon until the people are proven innocent. Such propositions, just like your own premise, are nonsensical and can only be extracted from the constitution by nothing less than utter butchery of the English language.

If it is not regulated (or infringed upon), such a militia actually undermines and threatens the security of the state.

Innocent people being able to protect themselves from criminals and foreign invaders is a threat to the state? That's a sad and pathetic way to see things.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Semi-automatic weapons are not weapons of warfare.

You're welcome, mouth breather.

Thats the new buzz word from the gun hysterical gun grabbers

weapons of warfare??! with that logic a 500 mosberg or a Remington 870 would need to be banned,both have been used by the military. Both are pump guns.

Forget that: include the M1903 Springfield...you know, the bolt action rifle used by the US Marines!

 

[Jarlaxle]

So ban the rifles too, or just the magazines? BTW, #7 is a 10 round magazine, I believe.

imho - anything fully automatic or anything that can shoot more than 8 rounds without re-loading, I could support banning weather it fits the "assault" definition du jour or not.

This is a single action revolver, which means you have to cock it every time in order to fire it, yet you want to ban it because it holds 9 rounds.

Feel stupid yet?

Is that a Civil War-era Le Mat? A cavalry pistol holding nine rounds that I think were about .42 caliber, plus a second barrel with a charge of buckshot?

 

[Nosmo King]

Basically what well regulated means is "as expected and in working order"

As expected by whom? The citizens they are allegedly to protect, or their opposition?

Expected by whom? I am glad you asked
Here is a quote from the 18th century with well regulated used in it.

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

That Washington quote did not answer my question.

 

[The Rabbi]

As expected by whom? The citizens they are allegedly to protect, or their opposition?

Expected by whom? I am glad you asked
Here is a quote from the 18th century with well regulated used in it.

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

That Washington quote did not answer my question.

It should be obvious what he means. In case you missed it, expected by those with knowledge of what constitutes "well regulated". Barack Obama has no idea what well regulated looks like. Stanley McChrystal does.

 

[Erand7899]

Yup - common sense is all too uncommon here sometimes.

So if they where blasted in two with a double aught buck shot it would have been different?

I don't think as many would have been killed. Takes too long to re-load. By the time he put six or seven shots into each victim with that bad boy, he might of gotten two people before he got taken down during a re-load.

Which one of those six year old children do you figure would have been capable of taking him down during a reload?

Insanity is making law based on a single incidence of violence caused by a madman. The nut could have killed the same number of people with two six shot revolvers and a couple of speed loaders. He could have done the same damage with a machete or a big crowbar.