Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[woodwork201]

overned equals Regulated. As in for the good of the general Public Safety in this case. I, for one, don't take the last part of the 2nd amendment verbatum. And neither did Hell V which is the gold standard for Gun Laws in this Nation.

That may be, but it doesn't turn a right into a privilege.

This is why we never concede to the mistaken idea that rights can be "governed" or regulated beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution. When we try to make the conversation civil by allowing that the mistaken opinions of the left have merit, even just as opinions, then they build on that to continue their argument. When we concede that rights can be governed then all that is left is to decide how much they can be governed - or infringed.

The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed." It does not say, "shall not be infringed except" and it doesn't say, "shall not be infringed but".

If the Second Amendment can be infringed for good (or emotional) cause then who decides what is good cause? Certainly not the people and certainly not Congress. If it was the intent of the Founders that the people could vote away provisions of the Constitution, or that Congress could, or that the president could by executive order, then there would have been no need for Article V at all.

 

[Vrenn]

No it doesn't. It says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms or where you can have them.

And it doesn't say what arms you can't.

Our founders realized that the primitive gun would not likely be the same weapon in 200 years from the writing of the Constitution, or even 50 years. They knew arms would change but didn't restrict that right to only those arms. Arms are arms. It's like saying we could have a law that women can't vote in the primaries because the Constitution was not explicit in the right to vote. Voting is voting and a right of all people.

You have it backwards really. If you want to have the Constitution to have exclusions for certain weapons, then you actually need an amendment, not an amendment to include them. A right to bear arms means all arms regardless of the arms of the day.

The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment for the day. Since then, 2/3rds of it no longer applies. A single state or even a group of states doesn't have the money nor the power to go up against the Federal Government. Even the clause that limited the Federal Army to just 75,000 got thrown out the window in 1898. Had it not, Spain would have kicked Americas butt soundly. And it was cemented in the 1916/17 Federal National Guard Act. So do we keep the US Army at the 75,000 limit or has it been completely thrown out? The 2nd Amendment was originally written for fear of what King George did in 1775.

 

[Vrenn]

overned equals Regulated. As in for the good of the general Public Safety in this case. I, for one, don't take the last part of the 2nd amendment verbatum. And neither did Hell V which is the gold standard for Gun Laws in this Nation.

That may be, but it doesn't turn a right into a privilege.

This is why we never concede to the mistaken idea that rights can be "governed" or regulated beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution. When we try to make the conversation civil by allowing that the mistaken opinions of the left have merit, even just as opinions, then they build on that to continue their argument. When we concede that rights can be governed then all that is left is to decide how much they can be governed - or infringed.

The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed." It does not say, "shall not be infringed except" and it doesn't say, "shall not be infringed but".

If the Second Amendment can be infringed for good (or emotional) cause then who decides what is good cause? Certainly not the people and certainly not Congress. If it was the intent of the Founders that the people could vote away provisions of the Constitution, or that Congress could, or that the president could by executive order, then there would have been no need for Article V at all.

Then we need to limit the US Army to 75,000 like it originally was. But we would have had our butts kicked by Spain, Germany twice, Japan once and so on. You want it to be what you want, fine. Let's go all the way and follow the first 2/3rds of the 2nd Amendment all the way verbatum. But I don't speak Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese very well and don't really wish to be forced to.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped. And that would be if the person was highly skilled like the Ex-Marine in California that had to be taken down by superior fire power and numbers. But in the hands of someone experienced, that body count could have easily been much, much higher had he used an AR with multiple 30 round mags. Yah, I know, the same can be said about a Mini-14 with 30 round mags but unlike the AR, it takes both hands to change the mags in a Mini-14, therefore slower fire rate overall. Just those 2 or 3 seconds will save lives but not enough. Lower the mag limits to 15 like the Courts had suggested. Make you have to reload more times. And you can only carry so many mags at a time. Most would carry 1 in the gun and 3 or 4 in a vest or belt. Anything past that really gets in the way and you clink when you walk.

You think a maniac is concerned about clinking when he walks?

Where do you get these 20 people from? The shooter continues to shoot until an armed person addresses the criminal to stop him. Hell, even my 9mm has a 15 round clip. One in the gun, two in my front jeans pockets and two in the rear pockets, and I have 75 rounds right there. Plus I know I can probably get two magazines in each of my front pockets.

You're not going to believe my video, you're not going to believe 2aguy's links, so believe yourself. Take a firearm with a 15 two round clips, make sure they're empty. Make sure the chamber of the gun is empty. Now pretend you are trying to shoot as fast as you can. Hit the release button on the mag to drop it. No, don't take it out with your hand. Just let it fall to the floor. Now take a magazine you have in your other hand and slap it in the gun. See how long it takes for yourself if you're not going to believe any of us.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment for the day. Since then, 2/3rds of it no longer applies. A single state or even a group of states doesn't have the money nor the power to go up against the Federal Government. Even the clause that limited the Federal Army to just 75,000 got thrown out the window in 1898. Had it not, Spain would have kicked Americas butt soundly. And it was cemented in the 1916/17 Federal National Guard Act. So do we keep the US Army at the 75,000 limit or has it been completely thrown out? The 2nd Amendment was originally written for fear of what King George did in 1775.

But that's not a right of the people to have any size army. When you're talking about rights of the people, the US Constitution is not a living document. It's written in stone. If our founders wrote the 2nd with the intent of only for being for that day, they would have included the weapons that the right covered. Arms means all arms, whether you're talking the 1700s or 2000s. If we want to change it, we can do it with a super majority of those that want it changed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is why we never concede to the mistaken idea that rights can be "governed" or regulated beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution. When we try to make the conversation civil by allowing that the mistaken opinions of the left have merit, even just as opinions, then they build on that to continue their argument. When we concede that rights can be governed then all that is left is to decide how much they can be governed - or infringed.

The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed." It does not say, "shall not be infringed except" and it doesn't say, "shall not be infringed but".

If the Second Amendment can be infringed for good (or emotional) cause then who decides what is good cause? Certainly not the people and certainly not Congress. If it was the intent of the Founders that the people could vote away provisions of the Constitution, or that Congress could, or that the president could by executive order, then there would have been no need for Article V at all.

Unfortunately that was not our decision to have some restrictions on rights. That was decided by the US Supreme Court.

The debate we were having is a privilege vs a right. A privilege is something government allows you to do or have. A right doesn't need the permission of government. It's already in the Constitution. And we don't convert rights to privileges because if we did, then it's no longer a right. It's like if we made driving an automobile a right. If we did that, then it's no longer a privilege from the state.

 

[Vrenn]

Governed equals Regulated. As in for the good of the general Public Safety in this case. I, for one, don't take the last part of the 2nd amendment verbatum. And neither did Hell V which is the gold standard for Gun Laws in this Nation.

Nothing at all in the Constitution about the good of the general Public Safety.. I checked and it's just not there. If you don't take the Constitution verbatim then just how do you take it? As a suggestion or general guideline when it fits the agenda of the political party in charge of the Whitehouse?

By Hell V, I assume you mean Heller. Heller is certainly NOT the gold standard for gun laws in the United States. It's an important case in that it did affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms but there are things that Scalia got wrong - Scalia actually was a gun controller; just not as extreme as, say, Chuck Schumer. Heller also didn't address many key points of gun control.

The ONLY reason the Supreme Court got involved was there are no state rights involved. DC isn't a state. The Modern Supreme Court avoids 2nd Amendment issues like the plague as it's States Rights and is actually outside of their venue.

 

[Vrenn]

The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment for the day. Since then, 2/3rds of it no longer applies. A single state or even a group of states doesn't have the money nor the power to go up against the Federal Government. Even the clause that limited the Federal Army to just 75,000 got thrown out the window in 1898. Had it not, Spain would have kicked Americas butt soundly. And it was cemented in the 1916/17 Federal National Guard Act. So do we keep the US Army at the 75,000 limit or has it been completely thrown out? The 2nd Amendment was originally written for fear of what King George did in 1775.

But that's not a right of the people to have any size army. When you're talking about rights of the people, the US Constitution is not a living document. It's written in stone. If our founders wrote the 2nd with the intent of only for being for that day, they would have included the weapons that the right covered. Arms means all arms, whether you're talking the 1700s or 2000s. If we want to change it, we can do it with a super majority of those that want it changed.

But it IS a living document. That was the original intent. But they also made it very difficult to change it so that every Tom, Dick and Mary wouldn't be changing it on a whim. So you are saying that the 1934 National Firearms Act and the McDonald V should be thrown out, right?

 

[SavannahMann]

But guns get misused. All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.

You have zero evidence to backup that claim.

That is logic. Let’s say I have a five shot revolver. Obviously I can’t shoot fifty people. At least not without reloading nine times.

Conversely if the revolver is a .357 Magnum, the damage done would be significantly worse than if I was using a less powerful cartridge of the type normally found in high capacity magazines.

And the damage from a .44 Magnum would be catastrophic by comparison.

That is something the focus on magazine capacity crew never understands. If High Capacity Mags are not available people will gravitate towards the more powerful cartridges again. A .308 is roughly speaking twice as powerful as a .223 and that means more damage to the person.

In fact a .30 cal rifle cartridge is probably going to be a through and through wound. In other words there is a good possibility that you will wound a second firing into a crowd.

But people don’t understand science. And ballistics as well as firearms are a science. Even pro gun people allow bias to influence them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is logic. Let’s say I have a five shot revolver. Obviously I can’t shoot fifty people. At least not without reloading nine times.

Conversely if the revolver is a .357 Magnum, the damage done would be significantly worse than if I was using a less powerful cartridge of the type normally found in high capacity magazines.

The difference is a revolver and a semi-automatic are apples and oranges. Two different styles of semi-automatics is just about the same thing. They both shoot the same way.

 

[woodwork201]

The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped. And that would be if the person was highly skilled like the Ex-Marine in California that had to be taken down by superior fire power and numbers.

Totally unsupported and unsupportable hogwash. No science, no intellectual study, no statistics, back up what you're claiming.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But it IS a living document. That was the original intent. But they also made it very difficult to change it so that every Tom, Dick and Mary wouldn't be changing it on a whim. So you are saying that the 1934 National Firearms Act and the McDonald V should be thrown out, right?

If it was a living document, then it's not a Constitution at all, is it? A living document means it automatically changes with the times. Okay, if that's so, then who decides what those changes are?

A living document does not need an amendment process. It just changes all on it's own.

 

[Vrenn]

The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped. And that would be if the person was highly skilled like the Ex-Marine in California that had to be taken down by superior fire power and numbers. But in the hands of someone experienced, that body count could have easily been much, much higher had he used an AR with multiple 30 round mags. Yah, I know, the same can be said about a Mini-14 with 30 round mags but unlike the AR, it takes both hands to change the mags in a Mini-14, therefore slower fire rate overall. Just those 2 or 3 seconds will save lives but not enough. Lower the mag limits to 15 like the Courts had suggested. Make you have to reload more times. And you can only carry so many mags at a time. Most would carry 1 in the gun and 3 or 4 in a vest or belt. Anything past that really gets in the way and you clink when you walk.

You think a maniac is concerned about clinking when he walks?

Where do you get these 20 people from? The shooter continues to shoot until an armed person addresses the criminal to stop him. Hell, even my 9mm has a 15 round clip. One in the gun, two in my front jeans pockets and two in the rear pockets, and I have 75 rounds right there. Plus I know I can probably get two magazines in each of my front pockets.

You're not going to believe my video, you're not going to believe 2aguy's links, so believe yourself. Take a firearm with a 15 two round clips, make sure they're empty. Make sure the chamber of the gun is empty. Now pretend you are trying to shoot as fast as you can. Hit the release button on the mag to drop it. No, don't take it out with your hand. Just let it fall to the floor. Now take a magazine you have in your other hand and slap it in the gun. See how long it takes for yourself if you're not going to believe any of us.

2boy is a nutcase and will forever be in my ignore file. You, the other hand, actually discuss things. It's okay to disagree with me but do it respectfully. And I show the same thing.

Now, let's talk about power. The AR is on the weak side for a rifle bullet but it's still at least 3 times more powerful than a .357. It's penetration is many times that of your 9mm. You fire into a crowd, that one bullet goes through 2 and lodges into a third person or maybe even into the wall. Now, do it by pressing the trigger as fast as you can you can easily fire more than 400 rounds per minute not including Mag changes. I would figure that a person fluttering the trigger (including mag changes) can run through 4 mags in less than a minute. You don't need bump stocks at all. Just lots of ammo and large capacity mags. In the Aurora shooting, the shooter did almost all his shooting with his mothers AR with a 100 round mag. Luckily, it jammed right around round #50 or 56. he also had a handgun and a shotgun but those were spent pretty quick. He had the record until LV. But the wounded were staggering. There were many times the wounded than the dead. It's a target rich environment. Movie Houses and Concerts are all like that. Schools are for the functionally stupid mass shooter going for the record. What made the Movie House more of a potential death trap versus the outdoor concert, the movie house has no where to run to. The outdoor concert starts out target rich but it ends up people dispersing in every which direction fast. There also was a difference between a stupid, unskilled Teen versus an experienced shooter like in LV. We've already seen what a combat veteran can do with a handgun (California). Imagine if a recent Combat
Veteran were to load up like he was going into battle with an AR. How many people would die or be wounded in a target rich environment.

The days of the Turkey Shoot in the Schools is over. And the new record holder will have some pretty tall shoes to fill. But it will happen again unless we use Regulations to limit the body count. And that is all I am getting at. We won't stop some sicko from trying it but we can make it harder for him to get the equipment to do it without banning the actual rifle itself.

 

[Vrenn]

The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped. And that would be if the person was highly skilled like the Ex-Marine in California that had to be taken down by superior fire power and numbers.

Totally unsupported and unsupportable hogwash. No science, no intellectual study, no statistics, back up what you're claiming.

I have enough experience in Combat to know. I put myself in that situation and come to those conclusions. I know the weapons, the limitations and the strengths. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in this discussion.

 

[Vrenn]

But guns get misused. All I am trying to do is to agree with the "LAW" that limits the amount of ammo carried. That, alone, keeps the body count to a lower level when they ARE misused.

You have zero evidence to backup that claim.

That is logic. Let’s say I have a five shot revolver. Obviously I can’t shoot fifty people. At least not without reloading nine times.

Conversely if the revolver is a .357 Magnum, the damage done would be significantly worse than if I was using a less powerful cartridge of the type normally found in high capacity magazines.

And the damage from a .44 Magnum would be catastrophic by comparison.

That is something the focus on magazine capacity crew never understands. If High Capacity Mags are not available people will gravitate towards the more powerful cartridges again. A .308 is roughly speaking twice as powerful as a .223 and that means more damage to the person.

In fact a .30 cal rifle cartridge is probably going to be a through and through wound. In other words there is a good possibility that you will wound a second firing into a crowd.

But people don’t understand science. And ballistics as well as firearms are a science. Even pro gun people allow bias to influence them.

Which due to size of gun and cartridge size and weight limits the number of rounds available. In the Military, there is a huge size and power difference between an Assault Rifle (.556) versus a full blown Battle Rifle (7.62 or bigger). And the cost of the Battle Rifle (even in semi auto) will far exceed most fruitcake shooters pocket books. And trying to use a hunting version is just stupid.

 

[woodwork201]

The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped. And that would be if the person was highly skilled like the Ex-Marine in California that had to be taken down by superior fire power and numbers. But in the hands of someone experienced, that body count could have easily been much, much higher had he used an AR with multiple 30 round mags. Yah, I know, the same can be said about a Mini-14 with 30 round mags but unlike the AR, it takes both hands to change the mags in a Mini-14, therefore slower fire rate overall. Just those 2 or 3 seconds will save lives but not enough. Lower the mag limits to 15 like the Courts had suggested. Make you have to reload more times. And you can only carry so many mags at a time. Most would carry 1 in the gun and 3 or 4 in a vest or belt. Anything past that really gets in the way and you clink when you walk.

How about a mass shooting with a revolver? Granted that not everyone will shoot this fast but if you allow that a motivated shooter might triple Jerry Miculek's time then that's 16 rounds in 12 seconds. Or if he quadruples Miculek's time then 16 rounds in 16 seconds. Since almost all mass shootings last minutes, some even more than 10 minutes, a shooter could even shoot at 10 times Miculek''s time, or 16 rounds in 40 seconds, and kill dozens.



There is, literally, only one solution to mass killings of these types: more guns in the hands of the targets so they can shoot back. Imagine how many fewer state fair ducks would get shot if the ducks in the shooting gallery could shoot back.

 

[Vrenn]

The best you can hope for today with a handgun or normal semi auto rifle would be about 20 people before you are stopped. And that would be if the person was highly skilled like the Ex-Marine in California that had to be taken down by superior fire power and numbers. But in the hands of someone experienced, that body count could have easily been much, much higher had he used an AR with multiple 30 round mags. Yah, I know, the same can be said about a Mini-14 with 30 round mags but unlike the AR, it takes both hands to change the mags in a Mini-14, therefore slower fire rate overall. Just those 2 or 3 seconds will save lives but not enough. Lower the mag limits to 15 like the Courts had suggested. Make you have to reload more times. And you can only carry so many mags at a time. Most would carry 1 in the gun and 3 or 4 in a vest or belt. Anything past that really gets in the way and you clink when you walk.

How about a mass shooting with a revolver? Granted that not everyone will shoot this fast but if you allow that a motivated shooter might triple Jerry Miculek's time then that's 16 rounds in 12 seconds. Or if he quadruples Miculek's time then 16 rounds in 16 seconds. Since almost all mass shootings last minutes, some even more than 10 minutes, a shooter could even shoot at 10 times Miculek''s time, or 16 rounds in 40 seconds, and kill dozens.



There is, literally, only one solution to mass killings of these types: more guns in the hands of the targets so they can shoot back. Imagine how many fewer state fair ducks would get shot if the ducks in the shooting gallery could shoot back.

What we have to do is make sure that those sillyvillian hands on those guns are trained. Having the normal Joe that thinks he's Gods answer to Wyatt Earp means that in a target rich environment he's going to kill and wound a lot of innocents. You want to get the guns in those hands? Get more people in the CCW program.

 

[woodwork201]

I know a bunch of Republicans that didn't vote for Rump. A lot of them. Doesn't make them fringe Democrats.

You know a bunch of Republicans who voted to kill babies, confiscate guns, sell children into child sex rings, rape women, and bring dangerous drugs into the United States.

In reality, there are almost no Democrats or Republicans. That designation is simply an indicator of which party's primary you registered to vote in. What really says who a person is, is how they vote. People who voted in the Republican primary, or registered to do so, since we don't know if they actually voted, but voted for open borders, higher taxes, raping women and children, kicking women out of women's sports, free healthcare for all the poor in the entire world, confiscate guns, forcing parents to let their children have their genitals chemically or surgically mutilated, or any of the above, just because Trump was not polite enough for them, is not a Republican in the way we use Republican to mean the political right. Regardless of which primary they voted in, they are, politically, Democrats.

 

[woodwork201]

No it doesn't. It says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms or where you can have them. You want it to read the way you think it does, get a 2/3rds Congress Vote for it or go the Continental Congress Route.

No, it doesn't say we have the right to keep and bear arms. It acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms and says that the right "shall not be infringed." It says what it says. It is you that, if you want it to say something else, would have to get it amended. And a 2/3 vote of Congress isn't enough; you should read the Constitution.

It's written at 8-grade level so if you need a tutor, I googled one for you: Smart Reading Program for Kids that need help with reading and comprehension

 

[woodwork201]

Wrong, and wrong.....none of the mass public shootings would have been affected by limiting to 15 round magazines....and, of course, they aren't calling for a 15 round limit but a 10 round limit because they know that bans million upon millions of pistols without having to vote to ban those pistols...they are just banning magazines....

Lifting the ban didn't change anything......

You are just pulling this crap out of your butt and you think people will think you sound correct....and you are not......

Actual research on magazine capacity and mass public shootings.....

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Brilliant find. I've never seen that analysis before; thanks for posting it.