200 years out of date!!!

[Zythryn]

I'm all for strict gun 'control'.

However, we need to enforce the laws now on the books. Then we need to close the loopholes in the existing laws.

As for the 2nd amendment, it is woefully out of date and needs to be clarified. Does a 'well regulated malitia' mean that individual citizens can purchase any weapon? The NRA, as I recall, argued against the banning of semi-automatic weapons on this platform. How about grenades? Nukes?

Now, most everyone, I would hope, would say it would be silly to suggest citizens be able to purchase and own nukes. So, where is the line drawn?

[Turtle]

I'm all for strict gun 'control'.

However, we need to enforce the laws now on the books. Then we need to close the loopholes in the existing laws.

As for the 2nd amendment, it is woefully out of date and needs to be clarified. Does a 'well regulated malitia' mean that individual citizens can purchase any weapon? The NRA, as I recall, argued against the banning of semi-automatic weapons on this platform. How about grenades? Nukes?

Now, most everyone, I would hope, would say it would be silly to suggest citizens be able to purchase and own nukes. So, where is the line drawn?

 

I get the feeling the NRA is largely concerned about getting onto just the slippery-slope you outline. However, the general current line is drawn to prohibit grenades and fully-automatic weapons from ownership by the general public. Even that has exceptions, as the government does license people to own & use them in certain circumstances.

 

I have watched a shooting expert discharge 6 rounds from a revolver faster than he could with a semi-auto .45, so in the case of pistols it is more a matter of how many shots one can discharge before reloading as opposed to how fast they discharge them.

 

I think the nuke argument is disengenuous :naughty: ; afterall, no one is proposing to hunt Dear with them.:eek: :hyper: As technology advances in the area of 'arms', then we must redraw the line at regular intervals. The price of Freedom is constant vigilence. - Tom Jefferson

 

Post Script: Black-powder arms, including revolvers and long-guns are not classified as 'firearms' under US Federal law and so are not subject to 'firearms' laws. Even convicted felons are not prohibited from buying or owning them. People also make, buy, and target-fire black-powder canon with little legal restriction. :Guns: :)

[CraigD]

As for the 2nd amendment, it is woefully out of date and needs to be clarified. Does a 'well regulated malitia' mean that individual citizens can purchase any weapon? The NRA, as I recall, argued against the banning of semi-automatic weapons on this platform. How about grenades? Nukes?

Now, most everyone, I would hope, would say it would be silly to suggest citizens be able to purchase and own nukes. So, where is the line drawn?

For students of the Constitution and People in general, this is a very interesting question, which has been argued to many disparate conclusions by many well-educated experts.

 

To answer it, one must somehow determine how it was presumed or intended that the keeping and bearing of arms (recall that, in 18th century terms, this was understood to include swords, spears, shield, bows and body armor, not just guns) would assure the security of a free State.

 

One interpretation, the one that perhaps survives best to the present, is that if Americans routinely used firearms to hunt, they would be “pre-trained” in time of war.

 

Another is that the militia may assure the security of the State without ever being enlisted in any organized military. Recall that, in the 18th century, Native Americans and colonists of nations other than England were considered a substantial thread to domestic security, and a state of low-intensity war between American settlers and these people largely sanctioned by the state and federal governments. Obviously, an armed militia is better equipped than an unarmed one for this. A lawful, well armed militia may also reduce the number of police that governments need employ, as it can arrest and bring criminals before courts unassisted.

 

The keeping of arms by the militia can be viewed as a cost-saving measure. For early American armies, procuring enough weapons for enlistees was a significant challenge, so ones who brought their own arms were a boon. Allowing the militia to keep their arms could also reduced the post-war friction resulting from attempts to get weapons back from soldiers when they were discharged, and provide an incentive to enlistment in the form of an advertised “rifle you can keep”.

 

There is a “stealth message” in the Second Amendment, also, in the wording “a well regulated militia”. Having ratified a Bill of Rights containing those words, implies that the passing of laws to regulate militias and arms is a power of the states. Many present day gun ownership advocates strongly object to laws intended for this purpose, such as registries of guns and their owners.

 

Arguably the most controversial interpretation of the Second Amendment is that its justification is not mentioned in its wording, but is that a well-armed body civil is a safeguard against government corruption, because it can quickly rise in rebellion against such governments. As other parts of the constitution enumerate rebellion as an activity for which individuals may be deprived of numerous guaranteed rights and immunities, interpreting the Second Amendment as an occult reference to a right to rebel lends the Constitution a rather schismed character.

 

IMHO, none of these arguments are relevant to the current US civil or military situation. Whether the Second Amendment will be repealed for this or any other reason is difficult to predict. Precedent suggests not: the only Amendment every repealed is the Eighteenth prohibiting the manufacture, importation, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors. No Constitution freedom has ever been repealed by an Amendment.

[Turtle]

...

There is little if any legitimate use of handguns in hunting, and in fact the only handgun I know of that meets the regs for hunting off the shelf is the .44 auto-mag. (the standard is so many foot/pounds of energy at a given distance). Handguns have been, and remain, primarily for use against people....

 

There is no legitimate use of a hollow point pistol round other than killing people, for example.

 

:blink: :)

 

 

I just couldn't resist an opportunity to contradict myself. :hihi: That Turtle; what a maroon. B) Anyway, while most US citizens are city-folk and seldom hit the wilds, for those of us who do there is no match for protection from bear, cougar, or other large critter attacks than a powerful handgun with the most lethal ammunition available. Quick at hand from a holster and readily brought to bear in close quarters, such arms may make the difference whether you tell the story, or the coroner. :Guns:

[C1ay]

I just couldn't resist an opportunity to contradict myself. :blink: That Turtle; what a maroon. :) Anyway, while most US citizens are city-folk and seldom hit the wilds, for those of us who do there is no match for protection from bear, cougar, or other large critter attacks than a powerful handgun with the most lethal ammunition available. Quick at hand from a holster and readily brought to bear in close quarters, such arms may make the difference whether you tell the story, or the coroner. B)

 

Since you brought it up, I carry a .44 Magnum when we go camping in bear country. I'd much rather have a .475 Wildey Magnum though. If I found myself in a situation where I had to take a shot at a bear I'd rather have a chance at killing it than getting it pissed off...

[Racoon]

200 years ago people didn't have semi-auto pistols w/ 30 bullet clips..

 

So it may have been easier to convince our Forefathers to allow every country bumpkin to have a musket handy in case the Indians or Red Coats come lookin' to stir-up a kettle full of trouble.

 

I agree with the Constitution. However, I think more hoops need to be jumped through in order to legally obtain a firearm; ie in this Cho case of a person who was institutionalized and deemed a "threat".

 

 

What are the crime rates for the countries who have strict laws of gun control?

I hear they aren't much better than before;in places such as Australia.

 

 

Ben Franklin believed ' a Government should be afraid of the people, not the people should be afraid of their government '

[Turtle]

200 years ago people didn't have semi-auto pistols w/ 30 bullet clips..

 

So it may have been easier to convince our Forefathers to allow every country bumpkin to have a musket handy in case the Indians or Red Coats come lookin' to stir-up a kettle full of trouble.

...Ben Franklin believed ' a Government should be afraid of the people, not the people should be afraid of their government '

 

That's an interesting point. I think since they used the word 'arms' the door was wide open; as Craig pointed out, 'arms' includes swords, spears, body armour, etcetera. What they did have at the time was the best technology had to offer. One could even argue the right to keep & bear canon. :Guns:

As to our friend Ben, given his penchant for invention, I bet he would enjoy having a go with a Benelli semi-auto shotgun! :hihi:

 

Since you brought it up, I carry a .44 Magnum when we go camping in bear country. I'd much rather have a .475 Wildey Magnum though. If I found myself in a situation where I had to take a shot at a bear I'd rather have a chance at killing it than getting it pissed off...

 

I had to look up the Wildey. Holy crap! :) B) I bet you could blow a hole in the dirt big enough to trap a bear. :D :) The barrel looks a little long, but given the right holster I'm sure one could work around that. :)

.475 Wildey Magnum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

PS I shoulda' read the whole article first; the weapon has interchangeable barrels and is pictured with the 18" version. :blink:

[Tormod]

I've enjoyed hundreds and hundreds of hours of target practice and skeet shooting for sport. I've enjoyed hundreds of hours of hunting and many great meals from my guns. There are millions more like me.

 

For the record, I'd like to qualify my statement by adding that I don't mind guns when they are being used for hunting, sports, competitions etc.

 

I do however think that gun control as a social issue and the use of guns for sports is to completely different things.

[Turtle]

For the record, I'd like to qualify my statement by adding that I don't mind guns when they are being used for hunting, sports, competitions etc.

 

I do however think that gun control as a social issue and the use of guns for sports is to completely different things.

 

So noted. :) If people are bent on mass murder, they'll find the means. McVeigh & his cohorts used no guns, but rather materials readily available to anyone.

 

I guess this falls under 'sport', but it's this kinda chuckle-head shooter that scares the crap out of me.

The most powerful handgun in the world