Would you allow everyone to own a fully auto M4 carbine?

absolutely.

of course, anyone can own one now if they want.
 
Otis Mayfield said:
M4 is what the army has, it's what the National Guard has, the militia should have it too.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

That, and the state of the art Squad Automatic Weapon or S.A.W. (currently the m249 or the M60E4/Mk43mod0). If militia are to operate like a military unit, they should have the same equipment of a military unit.
 
AZrailwhale said:
There are something like twenty studies by groups ranging from the IS government under Bill Clinton (hardly a champion for gun rights) to the CDC (another organization hostile to gun rights). They span over twenty years and the low figure they came up with was in the vicinity of eight hundred thousand per year and the high was in the vicinity of two million two hundred sixty thousand per year. Don’t argue with us, argue with the organizations that did the surveys.
Click to expand...
That dude comes in here and insists on throwing flame bombs with no other purpose than to stir up shit.
 
AZrailwhale said:
There are something like twenty studies by groups ranging from the IS government under Bill Clinton (hardly a champion for gun rights) to the CDC (another organization hostile to gun rights). They span over twenty years and the low figure they came up with was in the vicinity of eight hundred thousand per year and the high was in the vicinity of two million two hundred sixty thousand per year. Don’t argue with us, argue with the organizations that did the surveys.
Click to expand...
The CDC has been forbidden to perform gun research since 2006.
So, we'll just call that a lie and move on.
 
Dadoalex said:
The CDC has been forbidden to performthe gun research since 2006.
So, we'll just call that a lie and move on.
Click to expand...



That's a lie. Many links have been provided to studies they did in 2010/2011time frame
 
Dadoalex said:
The CDC has been forbidden to perform gun research since 2006.
So, we'll just call that a lie and move on.
Click to expand...


That is just dumb....they haven't been banned from doing gun research.......do you even think to do basic research before you post?

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....2003

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....2001

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....2013

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...2014

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


==================

The Deleware study of 2015...

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. (Published 2015)

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”
Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.


------------------
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

  • Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

  • The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
  • The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.
“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.
 
2aguy said:
That is just dumb....they haven't been banned from doing gun research.......do you even think to do basic research before you post?

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....2003

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....2001

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....2013

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...2014

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


==================

The Deleware study of 2015...

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. (Published 2015)

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”
Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.


------------------
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

  • Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

  • The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
  • The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.
“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.
Click to expand...
Cap'n Copy-Paste strikes again with loads of demonstrably false crap.

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Not repealed till 2019.
 
Otis Mayfield said:
Scalia is dead.

Heller was a 5 to 4 decision.
Click to expand...

5-4 on the question of whether the DC statutes should stand or be invalidated.

On the larger question, on whether the 2nd Amendment secures a "collective right" or "individual right", Heller was 9-0 for the individual right.

The dissents all agreed that whatever the debate has been over that question, that debate is now dead.

The dissents all agreed that the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment protects an “individual” right has always been the interpretation represented in the Court's precedent, it is the interpretation represented in all three opinions issued that day in June 2008 by the Court, and is the interpretation that the entire Heller Court subscribes.
 
Dadoalex said:
Provide the CDC links, please.

The more appropriate title would be the Dickish amendment. but, for your non-perusal...

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...


Asked, now answered...

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....2003

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....2001

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....2013

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...2014

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


==================

The Deleware study of 2015...

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. (Published 2015)

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”
Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.


------------------

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.

Dr. Lott testifying in 2019 about gun research and the CDC as well as private research..

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf



No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.



Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

  • Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

  • The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
  • The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.
“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.
  • ------
 
C_Clayton_Jones said:
Nonsense.

The Second Amendment says no such thing.

The Second Amendment does say that the right is not unlimited.

That it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose – including a full-auto M4.

And it says that weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual are not entitled to Second Amendment protections.

Consequently, laws prohibiting the possession of full-auto M4s are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment says none of that, what you recite are various statements of the Court interpreting the 2nd Amendment, but you fail to include the most permanent maxim of the 2nd Amendment . . . That the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right does not in any manner depend upon the Constitution for its existence.

The very discussion of what the 2nd Amendment "says" the right is, is of little consequence and is a diversion as the right can not be defined or conditioned or qualified by words upon which the right does not depend.

The right to arms is not possesed by the people because the 2nd Amendment is there or what it says. The people possess the right to arms because of what the body of the Constiution doesn't say -- no power was ever granted to the federal government to allow it to compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen . . . That silence is what defines the right to keep and bear arms.



.
 
Abatis said:
The 2nd Amendment says none of that, what you recite are various statements of the Court interpreting the 2nd Amendment, but you fail to include the most permanent maxim of the 2nd Amendment . . . That the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right does not in any manner depend upon the Constitution for its existence.

The very discussion of what the 2nd Amendment "says" the right is, is of little consequence and is a diversion as the right can not be defined or conditioned or qualified by words upon which the right does not depend.

The right to arms is not possesed by the people because the 2nd Amendment is there or what it says. The people possess the right to arms because of what the body of the Constiution doesn't say -- no power was ever granted to the federal government to allow it to compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen . . . That silence is what defines the right to keep and bear arms.



Thank you, excellent post.
Click to expand...
 
westwall said:
It would be really hard to classify the primary small arm of the US Army as "unusual".

But then again, you are the epitome of the pseudo intellectual.
Click to expand...

A comment on the first statement: The origin of "unusual" in the Court's "dangerous and unusual" determination of arms not protected by the 2ndA, is derived from and actually refers to the idea that legislatures can restrict the possession and use of arms that are "dangerous and not usual in civilized warfare" . . . See Aymete v State, which the Miller Court used to decide how to treat Miller's sawed-off shotgun.

On the second sentiment: Absolutely true.
 
C_Clayton_Jones said:
Be that as it may…

Scalia had to disconnect the Second Amendment from militia service in order to justify abandoning the collective right argument in favor of an individual right.

The collective right argument held that because military-type weapons were the sole purview of the armed forces, their prohibition by civilians was lawful and Constitutional.
Click to expand...

The "collective right" interpretations in the federal courts was of 20th Century origin, entirely limited to the lower federal courts (Cases v US and Tot v US, both from 1942).

SCOTUS never entertained that foolishness. It is a travesty that the collective right theories were allowed to pollute the lower federal courts and state courts for 66 years until Heller invalided those perversions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New law has taken effect in Oregon, requiring “unattended” guns to be locked in the home

< Previous Thread

Armed civilians shoot more criminals than police in 2020.....good for them.

Next Thread >

Similar threads

Doc7505
They Said Biden Wouldn’t Come for Our Guns. The Plan Says Otherwise.
Replies
10
Views
184
hadit
H
mudwhistle
Why Are Democrats Really Attacking Elon
Replies
10
Views
177
Leo123
Leo123
badbob85037
Can't Cure Stupid
Replies
10
Views
316
Leo123
Leo123
catatomic
2nd stump speech for 2028
Replies
8
Views
175
catatomic
catatomic
Doc7505
The Pentagon Must Go on the Offensive to Defeat Politicized Officers
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
424
John Edgar Slow Horses
John Edgar Slow Horses

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom