are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

[Uncle Billy]

So you only want to disarm civilians from owning effective firearms.

Effective firearms in civilian situations don't need to be as efficient as modern combat weapons are at killing a lot of targets in a short period of time, it is unlikely in the extreme that any civilian will be presented with a threat that requires the capability to kill or injure multiple attackers of enough number that a large capacity magazine is necessary. Six shot revolvers with practiced use of Speedloaders or 7 or 8 round magazines in semi auto rifles or handguns is enough to defend against any threatening situation reasonably apt to occur.

The concept of need is entirely irrelevant to a right.

The right is to defend one's self with firearms. There are plenty of firearms that meet that objective that aren't capable in the wrong hands of killing a lot of targets in a short period of time, unnecessary for personal defense in any probable scenario in civilian life.

You fail define crowd-killers.

A "crowd killer" is a weapon that can quickly and effectively lay deadly fire on multiple personnel congregated in close proximity in a short period of time- like a theater or a classroom, for example.

Appeal to authority, logical fallacy.

No, I have no authority and what I wrote doesn't claim any. It states my identity as a gun owner and user.

A private citizen will probably never have to defend his home or self from attack by an enemy patrol armed with military small arms.

irrelevant

It's a truth, and being so challenges the assertion that a private citizen needs the capabilities necessary to provide such a defense.

So someone should decide for an individual and autonomous citizen their own capability based on a centralized and politicized program meant for warfare?

Yes, the same assessment made of military recruits before they are issued weapons if the intent is to possess and use the weapons of modern warfare the military uses.

Not only do crazy people slip through the cracks as already established, but more importantly a lot of the screening process is to stem lawsuits.

Off the point.

You can't legally fly an FA-18 with a loaded and armed M61 Vulcan aboard by just buying one no matter how much money you have.

Completely irrelevant. One is a small firearm and the other is a plane. The M61 Vulcan attached to it is a separate issue to the comparison as well.

Totally relevant: Both are very effective modern arms of war, one of which is not available to civilians at any price (a violation of the 2A?), the other is available in many places to anyone who can steal one or who has the money regardless of any other aspect of who they are or what their mental state is.

More people die from overeating, smoking, drinking, automobiles, and .22lr caliber firearms.

Overeating, smoking (removed from others), and drinking are self- destructive, they aren't evils done to someone by someone else. Automobiles aren't used against others in an effort to kill them in any number that's significant. Calibers are not the issue.

Anyone who has not met the military's requirements to demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence to have access to weaponry with capabilities (save full-auto fire which is an insignificant difference when assaulting unarmed unprepared unaware targets like 6-year-olds) identical to the military's combat weaponry.

Military state. That's good.

A "military state" is one run by the military, that's clearly not the proposal.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

I wrote: There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

Reasoning: In civilian life there are no hunting or defense situations that require a light, easily handled low recoil semiautomatic weapon with large on-board ammunition capacity, both of those uses for guns are equally or better met by guns less focused on quick, accurate mass killing. What's left are recreation, entertainments, in short, hobbies - targets, combat arms competitions, collections, re-creation of modern combat dress and equipment. etc. Justifying unlimited access to M-16- like capabilities at mass killing to maintain a hobby is nearly pathological indifference to the harm such weapons can do when the hobby gets out of hand. Too bad you can't ask Mrs. Lanza whether she agrees.

She owned one so I guess she would have disagreed with you.

The overthrow of an illegal or oppressive government is a legitimate civilian activity. If you don't believe me than ask the US Government why they are supporting the rebels in Syria to overthrow the government there.

A "crowd killer" is a weapon that can quickly and effectively lay deadly fire on multiple personnel congregated in close proximity in a short period of time- like a theater or a classroom, for example.

That would be just about any gun.

 

[zxcvbob]

Effective firearms in civilian situations don't need to be as efficient as modern combat weapons are at killing a lot of targets in a short period of time, it is unlikely in the extreme that any civilian will be presented with a threat that requires the capability to kill or injure multiple attackers of enough number that a large capacity magazine is necessary. Six shot revolvers with practiced use of Speedloaders or 7 or 8 round magazines in semi auto rifles or handguns is enough to defend against any threatening situation reasonably apt to occur.

The Supreme Court disagreed with you in the 1939 case U.S. v. Miller. AFAIK that ruling has not been overturned.

I don't like plastic guns either, I like nice walnut and blued metal, but military-equivalent weapons are the MOST constitutionally protected arms. Your duck-hunting double shotgun just goes along for the ride. And don't you ever think the gun-grabbers aren't after your guns too. They will not be happy until all guns are in the hands of the ruling class -- except for a few in the hands of violent criminals (which they'll never get rid of) but they are OK with that because criminals serve a useful purpose.

Diane Feinstein has a concealed weapons permit, and AFAIK she still carries a snubnosed revolver. Do you know any ordinary people in San Francisco who could get a permit?

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

It is disheartening that folks continue to concentrate on the tool.

The facts, divorced from emotion, prove irrefutably that the tool of choice is irrelevant.

These attacks happen all over the world and have been happening for all of recorded history.

Even in the modern world, a great many of these attacks are carried out with edged weapons and routinely kill as many or more than those attacks which use firearms.

In many parts of the world, there is near unrestricted, unlimited, cheap, easy access to fully-automatic weapons... and the attackers use explosives.

Timothy McVeigh used explosives and killed 18 daycare children, among others. The worst school attack in American history was done with explosives, and killed 38 children and 20 adults.

Believing that you can stop a lunatic who is bent on killing by forcing him to pick a different tool, is naive beyond comprehension. Totally divorced from the reality around us.

The ONLY relevance that firearms have to the discussion is their use to DEFEND ourselves from these potential lunatics. There is no other tool that can be effectively carried or utilized that could be accessible to a normal person during their daily lives. NONE.

The question of stopping the lunatics is a pure, unadulterated STRAW MAN argument. It's impossible. They can't be stopped. The end.

Pick a different goal.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

Effective firearms in civilian situations don't need to be as efficient as modern combat weapons are at killing a lot of targets in a short period of time, it is unlikely in the extreme that any civilian will be presented with a threat that requires the capability to kill or injure multiple attackers of enough number that a large capacity magazine is necessary. Six shot revolvers with practiced use of Speedloaders or 7 or 8 round magazines in semi auto rifles or handguns is enough to defend against any threatening situation reasonably apt to occur.

I would say it is highly unlikely that most people will ever use their firearm for self defense. However, I can think of plenty of times when having a higher capacity magazine was not enough; even for the police. Self defense is not a stated purpose in the Constitution for arms however so I am not sure how that has any meaning in a legal context.

 

[12GaugeShuggoth]

Believing that you can stop a lunatic who is bent on killing by forcing him to pick a different tool, is naive beyond comprehension. Totally divorced from the reality around us.

The ONLY relevance that firearms have to the discussion is their use to DEFEND ourselves from these potential lunatics. There is no other tool that can be effectively carried or utilized that could be accessible to a normal person during their daily lives. NONE.

The question of stopping the lunatics is a pure, unadulterated STRAW MAN argument. It's impossible. They can't be stopped. The end.

Pick a different goal.

+1, that's about as well said as it can get

 

[Al Norris]

There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

Almost every single firearms platform ever designed, was for military use. Full Stop.

The fact that many firearms are now almost exclusively used for hunting or recreation detracts nothing from its original intent and purpose.

What was yesterday's military style firearm is simply today's hunting/sports/defensive firearm.

As for your contention that civilians must needs be vetted by some military form, might I remind you that today, some 40,000,000+ lawful firearm owners did not commit a violent criminal act?

 

[BullseyePrecision]

Every person is required to carry a handgun.

 

[Alabama Shooter]

Only if you're trying to hide modern combat weapons or their clones or imitators among all other guns. It ought to sound exactly like "Only police and military should have modern combat weapons or their clones or imitators".

How "modern" is a 70 year old design like the M1 Carbine?

 

[K_Mac]

Restricting or banning firearms will not change this reality and violates the 2A

Not all weapons, just those that in the wrong hands present a unique and greatly increased hazard to innocent civilians. Machine guns have been so designated, why is there no big push to get them legalized? Trying to scare gun owners into believing that ownership of all guns is at risk is no less ridiculous than claiming that no one ought to own any weapon.

Now we get to the crux of your position: Not all weapons, just the really dangerous ones. Would the results of the most recent atrocity have been different if the shooter had only been armed with a 9 mm Glock and a bag of loaded 10 round magazines? How about a Ruger GP 100 in .357 magnum and a bag of loaded speed loaders? How about a Mossberg 500 and a bag of several boxes of buckshot? How about a machete? Would the results have been any different had he been armed with any one of the weapons you own and a big bag of ammo? I doubt it very much. How then can you make the argument that all guns are not at risk? It does not follow.

 

[Spats McGee]

The right is to defend one's self with firearms. There are plenty of firearms that meet that objective that aren't capable in the wrong hands of killing a lot of targets in a short period of time, unnecessary for personal defense in any probable scenario in civilian life.

I bolded your error. The right is not limited to personal defense. It's The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I wrote: There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

Reasoning: In civilian life there are no hunting or defense situations that require a light, easily handled low recoil semiautomatic weapon with large on-board ammunition capacity, both of those uses for guns are equally or better met by guns less focused on quick, accurate mass killing. . . . .

Patently untrue. For example, in the case of a home invasion or a natural disaster, the need for a light, easily handled, semiautomatic ought to be obvious.

. . . . Six shot revolvers with practiced use of Speedloaders or 7 or 8 round magazines in semi auto rifles or handguns is enough to defend against any threatening situation reasonably apt to occur.

"Reasonably apt to occur" really isn't the standard the SCOTUS has set forth. Perhaps more importantly, what if something that is "unreasonable" occurs? I work very hard to try to make sure that my family and I live in an area where a home invasion is something less than "reasonably apt" to occur. I think that's an awfully weak reason for the antis to deny me the right to own a weapon that could resolve such a situation in my favor, all because they fear what someone else might do with it.

A private citizen will probably never have to defend his home or self from attack by an enemy patrol armed with military small arms.

irrelevant

It's a truth, and being so challenges the assertion that a private citizen needs the capabilities necessary to provide such a defense.

Even though a citizen could need a light, low-recoil semiauto rifle with a moderate ammunition capacity, their right to own it is not based on needs.

Ever hear of the Bill of Needs?
Me, neither.

 

[dspieler]

I'm tempted to say "Preach it Uncle Billy".

I know that people say that guns are just tools, but not all tools are equal to every task. There are tools that are better suited to different tasks, and, prima facie, the AR is a tool nicely suited to a particular situation that, as Uncle Billy has suggested, I think correctly, is not a highly likely one in civilian life.

Ride me out on a rail on this, but I think there's a significant portion of the community that is harboring fantasies of holding off swarms of gov't agents, zombies, marauding bands of hoodlums, etc. Granted, in such situations, and AR would be handy. Outside of these situations, it is hard to see where alternative tools are insufficient to the task.

So, here's what kinda freaks people, the 'anti's', out a bit: It seems like there is a refusal to even admit that certain tools are optimized for different situations, and there are some tools that are so unlikely to arise in civilian life, that the tool probably doesn't have a strong reason to be in civilian hands.

There, I said it. I have an AR, and I probably shouldn't. Because I'm not going to be fighting off large organized bands of bad guys, and I'm not going to be leading a revolution.

Should they be banned? Hell, I actually not sure because I'm not sure that it will make a massive difference, but failing to even acknowledge that these weapons have been designed with a very specific purpose, seems like a deliberate attempt as self deception.

I'm donning my flame retardant suit, so flame on!

 

[mayosligo]

How is the purpose of an AR different from a Remington 700 or a Browning BPS? What makes you think that any firearm can make the list?

 

[Spats McGee]

I don't deny that an AR is better suited for some situations than, say, an 870 Wingmaster. That'd be plain ol' silly. What I am saying is that your right to own isn't (or shouldn't be) predicated on the popular idea of what's "needed." If you open that door for the antis, then it's only a matter of time before the public is stripped of every firearm, down to and including Daisy Red Riders.

I don't think of guns as tools. They're weapons. The 2A doesn't protect the right to keep and bear tools.

 

[dspieler]

I don't deny that an AR is better suited for some situations than, say, an 870 Wingmaster. That'd be plain ol' silly. What I am saying is that your right to own isn't (or shouldn't be) predicated on the popular idea of what's "needed." If you open that door for the antis, then it's only a matter of time before the public is stripped of every firearm, down to and including Daisy Red Riders.

Modern life is predicated on making decisions in terms of costs and benefits. I hate to break it to you but there aren't alot of absolutes.

SCOTUS explicitly noted that their decision affirming the personal right to bear arms did not preclude regulations barring or severely restricting the ability of individuals from owning particular classes of firearms.

Indeed, we already do this. NFA institutes a different regime for owning particular classes.

So, the question that is going to be dealt with, is whether the easy availability of ARs and such (however any final legislation attempts to define it) has a cost, and is the cost worth the benefit. For all of those individuals that harbor SHTF fantasies of zombie wastelands, that's not a benefit that is going to weigh into the calculation. Neither is the idea that we might need to defend ourselves from marauding bands of BATF agents. We need to get our heads right and our feet on the ground and deal with reality.

In my own personal belief, and as someone who lived in Germany and Sweden for periods of time, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that semi-automatic weapons, pistols or long guns, have a weak foundation for justifying broad ownership in the civilian population. This isn't an argument that I want to prevail, but I know good, decent, intelligent people that make very good arguments to this effect. They will argue, with very strong empirical evidence, that making killing tools less prevalent in the population, there will be less killing.

Our argument needs to engage them on similar empirical grounds and not 1) Simply denying that some guns are just better at killing than others and 2) that our right to bear arms is absolute. Both are demonstrably false. The first by design, and the second by current law.

 

[BGutzman]

SCOTUS explicitly noted that their decision affirming the personal right to bear arms did not preclude regulations barring or severely restricting the ability of individuals from owning particular classes of firearms.

Nor did the SCOTUS come out and say AR's can be or should be banned... 2nd law fall under the Bill of Rights not over it. You cannot pass a law that supersedes the "Bill of Rights" and if you do we have courts and groups to fight it back every step of the way. Ask Chicago and DC where these unconstitutional measures have gotten them... Giant legal bills and eventually loss after loss... not to mention crime rates to match the stupidity of their gun control laws..

The simple fact is SCOTUS has not ruled what is or is not permissible... If SCOTUS takes a look at what history has to say I suspect there's a lot more permissible things than non-permissible... I missed that right to be safe from all harm in the Bill of Rights....I missed that right to disarm others in the name of the illusion of safety.

 

[Spats McGee]

Modern life is predicated on making decisions in terms of costs and benefits. I hate to break it to you but there aren't alot of absolutes.

I am well aware that the RKBA isn't absolute. As far as costs and benefits, the government may not ignore the Constitution simply because it is inconvenient or costly.

With that said, what we're talking about is a lot of people talking about stripping me of my rights based on the actions of some third party. I would like to make two points about this "argument of needs," both of which I will explain just a little. First, it's not about "need." The 2nd Amendment is contained in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. One of the things to remember with Rights is that they're not necessarily predicated on need, nor are they typically subject to a popular vote. A person with an incredibly unpopular political opinion still has a 1st Amendment right to express it, regardless of how the vast majority of Americans might view that political opinion. The First Amendment is awfully undemocratic that way. Second, just because one particular person does not "need" something, does not mean that we, as a society do not need for that person to have a "right" to it. Let's look at some of the other amendments to illustrate. I, personally, have never *needed* to exercise my rights: (a) to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment; (b) to invoke my right not to incriminate myself under the 5th Amendment; or (c) to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. Nonetheless, I believe that we, as a society, need for all people under the laws of the United States, to have those particular rights. In the absence of those rights, the police would be free to kick in doors without warrants, and then torture whomever they find inside a house into confessing to crimes. The Second Amendment is no different. Just because I, personally, may not "need" an AR-15 or a Glock, we as a society need to start from the proposition that people have the right to have them. We need for every one of you to have the right to acquire effective means to defend yourselves, should you ever (heaven forbid) need to defend your lives and your families with force.

So, the question that is going to be dealt with, is whether the easy availability of ARs and such (however any final legislation attempts to define it) has a cost, and is the cost worth the benefit. For all of those individuals that harbor SHTF fantasies of zombie wastelands, that's not a benefit that is going to weigh into the calculation. Neither is the idea that we might need to defend ourselves from marauding bands of BATF agents. We need to get our heads right and our feet on the ground and deal with reality.

In my own personal belief, and as someone who lived in Germany and Sweden for periods of time, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that semi-automatic weapons, pistols or long guns, have a weak foundation for justifying broad ownership in the civilian population. This isn't an argument that I want to prevail, but I know good, decent, intelligent people that make very good arguments to this effect. They will argue, with very strong empirical evidence, that making killing tools less prevalent in the population, there will be less killing.

Our argument needs to engage them on similar empirical grounds and not 1) Simply denying that some guns are just better at killing than others and 2) that our right to bear arms is absolute. Both are demonstrably false. The first by design, and the second by current law.

I have also lived in Germany. Let us not forget that Germany has its own history of gun control.

I have never claimed that the RKBA encompassed all weapons, in all places. That said, I decline to engage the antis on statistical grounds. My right to defend myself isn't dependent on my odds of having to do so.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . . SCOTUS explicitly noted that their decision affirming the personal right to bear arms did not preclude regulations barring or severely restricting the ability of individuals from owning particular classes of firearms.

Do you happen to have a citation for that "explicit" note by SCOTUS? The way you've phrased it is not quite how I remember it.

 

[dspieler]

I would like to make two points about this "argument of needs," both of which I will explain just a little. First, it's not about "need." The 2nd Amendment is contained in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. One of the things to remember with Rights is that they're not necessarily predicated on need, nor are they typically subject to a popular vote. A person with an incredibly unpopular political opinion still has a 1st Amendment right to express it, regardless of how the vast majority of Americans might view that political opinion.

Granted. But note that there is 'harmful speech' that is regulated. That is/was a cost/benefit discrimination.

I have also lived in Germany. Let us not forget that Germany has its own history of gun control.

I'm steering clear of Goodwin's law.

That said, I decline to engage the antis on statistical grounds. My right to defend myself isn't dependent on my odds of having to do so.

To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli's quote, this statement is so bad, it isn't even wrong.

 

[dspieler]

Here are the operative statements:

None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation: Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation.

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Note, of course, that this opinion is quite long so there are other relevant passages but this, I think, is the gist. In particular, the latter sentence on dangerous and unusual weapons has been read in subsequent cases (with no subsequent review that I know of), to be a up to the wide latitude of the legislative branch.