(01-22-2013 11:31 AM)Max Power Wrote:  You call me intellectually dishonest; I call you a demagogue. Let's call it a draw.

I'll cut to the chase.

I call you intellectually dishonest because of this -- If you think the amendment is obsolete, you should propose it to be repealed.

However, you don't. You know it wouldn't happen. So, instead, you are for methods to chip-chip-chip away at it, incrementally, hoping to end up in the same place.

(01-22-2013 11:55 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Right, but the legal guns with the most potential for harm are the semi automatics with the large magazines and armor piercing bullets. If we can cut down even one mass shooting from 30 victims to 20 victims, we should.

We can protect the public from them by stopping their manufacturing, destroying those we can find and cleaning them up from the streets.

Quote:England essentially banned guns and fatal shootings went down. Congrats. However, the rate of violent crime has skyrocketed and England is much more dangerous than the U.S. That is what happens when you focus on the object and not the action. You do something to do something, but instead of fixing a problem, you make the situation worse.

And flooding the streets with guns seems to work well in the Middle East.

We are going in circles on the rest, so I'm willing to quit arguing (for the time being). However, selfishly, I'm interested in some things you said above.

Can you tell me, without wikipedia-ing, what is an armor piercing bullet? I'm not trying to be an ass. It is obviously something that you feel strongly about. Tell me what you think it is, and how it is more "dangerous" than something else.

What is a "large" magazine?

Is the same gun, whether pistol or rifle, less "dangerous" with a smaller magazine?

You do realize that the Colorado shooter had a gigantic, ridiculous magazine that jammed about three rounds in. As a practical product, those things are useless garbage because they are bulky, heavy and typically poorly made.

If we could cut down on mass shootings by being more pro-active in instutionalizing the mentally ill, would you be for that? (I'm not saying I'm for that, I'm just throwing it out in the if we can save one person context).

I think its funny that you guys are arguing about the Constitution. Since the Articles of Confederation were just discarded and the Constitution worked on before the States approved. And the writers of the Constitution said that it wasn't perfect. They didn't expect it to last and a new one would be written at some point. Of course that was the purpose of allowing Amendments to it.

(01-22-2013 02:21 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  I think its funny that you guys are arguing about the Constitution. Since the Articles of Confederation were just discarded and the Constitution worked on before the States approved. And the writers of the Constitution said that it wasn't perfect. They didn't expect it to last and a new one would be written at some point. Of course that was the purpose of allowing Amendments to it.

Then propose an amendment to repeal the 2nd. Get going on it. Until then, what we have is law and that is the umbrella under which we live.

(01-22-2013 04:32 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 02:21 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  I think its funny that you guys are arguing about the Constitution. Since the Articles of Confederation were just discarded and the Constitution worked on before the States approved. And the writers of the Constitution said that it wasn't perfect. They didn't expect it to last and a new one would be written at some point. Of course that was the purpose of allowing Amendments to it.

Then propose an amendment to repeal the 2nd. Get going on it. Until then, what we have is law and that is the umbrella under which we live.

Never said I wanted the 2nd amendment repealed. Just felt like pointing out the fact that our Constitution may have not been given permission to be written if the writers hadn't made an executive decision to undermine the power of the States.

Back on topic. I'd prefer it if guns were heavily taxed like cigarettes, private sales were illegal, thorough background checks, and anyone that wanted to own had to have a FOID. Getting a FOID required, again, a thorough background check, firearm training by a professional every year. Also, if you own a gun you have to purchase insurance, similar to car insurance. Some other minor details as well and others things I haven't thought about yet.

(01-22-2013 04:52 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 04:32 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 02:21 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  I think its funny that you guys are arguing about the Constitution. Since the Articles of Confederation were just discarded and the Constitution worked on before the States approved. And the writers of the Constitution said that it wasn't perfect. They didn't expect it to last and a new one would be written at some point. Of course that was the purpose of allowing Amendments to it.

Then propose an amendment to repeal the 2nd. Get going on it. Until then, what we have is law and that is the umbrella under which we live.

Never said I wanted the 2nd amendment repealed. Just felt like pointing out the fact that our Constitution may have not been given permission to be written if the writers hadn't made an executive decision to undermine the power of the States.

Actually, I think you are not correct there, historically. The Constitution, and largely the Bill of Rights, came from the States wanting a document that clearly limited Federal power and instead, empowered the States. That is why senators originally weren't directly elected. They were the representatives of the States, looking out for the States. We should all remember that the Founders intended the Federal goverment to be exceptionally limited and most things were to be handled at the State level. We are about as upside from that as we possibly could be.

(01-22-2013 04:52 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  Back on topic. I'd prefer it if guns were heavily taxed like cigarettes, private sales were illegal, thorough background checks, and anyone that wanted to own had to have a FOID. Getting a FOID required, again, a thorough background check, firearm training by a professional every year. Also, if you own a gun you have to purchase insurance, similar to car insurance. Some other minor details as well and others things I haven't thought about yet.

To be very frank, that sounds like a lot of "infringing." I'm not sure I understand your "heavily taxed" comment either. That sounds purely punitive, especially when compared to cigarettes.

To give you and idea of what was on the minds of the founders:

The Virginia Declaration of Rights:(George Mason)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/...ch1s3.html

13. That a well-regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that Standing Armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Virginia Constitution(Jefferson)
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson...-quotation

This sentence comes from Thomas Jefferson's three drafts of the Virginia Constitution. The text does vary slightly in each draft:

First Draft: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."[1]

Second Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."[2]

Third Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]"[3]

This sentence does not appear in the Virginia Constitution as adopted.

Friends -

The Supreme Court of the United States has multiple times in multiple cases established or followed the precedent that wherever the Constitution refers to “the people” it is referring to a right held directly by individuals. It is not dependent on time in history, and it is not referring to a collective right held and administered by federal, state or local authorities.

If one thinks otherwise, fine. Take it up with the Supreme Court.

So as of today, someone continuing to assert that the right of the people to bear and keep arms depends upon the presence of a militia to administer is reading the amendment backwards. Militias can exist because “the People” have the right to bear and keep arms. It is not ambiguous: The Second Amendment – “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, is two clauses.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, the first clause, makes no sense standing on its own. It’s called a dependent clause. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” makes sense standing on its own, so it’s an independent clause. Is the 2nd Amendment clumsy? Yes. Would people talk like that in conversation? No. But plain English supports the 2nd Amendment clearly saying “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state”.

If one thinks otherwise, fine. Take it up with the Supreme Court or an English teacher.

I implore, that rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/a...#amdt2_hd2
It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory.1 Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment,.......Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription.5 Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.

However, the Court specifically stated (albeit in dicta) that the Second Amendment did not limit prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, penalties for carrying firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws regulating the sales of guns. The Court also noted that there was a historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons” that would not be affected by its decision. The Court, however, declined to establish the standard by which future gun regulations would be evaluated

Without the 2nd Amendment, all other rights become mere suggestions.

The 2nd Amendment is the answer to the question, "Or else what?".

(01-22-2013 09:45 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Actually, I think you are not correct there, historically. The Constitution, and largely the Bill of Rights, came from the States wanting a document that clearly limited Federal power and instead, empowered the States. That is why senators originally weren't directly elected. They were the representatives of the States, looking out for the States. We should all remember that the Founders intended the Federal goverment to be exceptionally limited and most things were to be handled at the State level. We are about as upside from that as we possibly could be.

To be very frank, that sounds like a lot of "infringing." I'm not sure I understand your "heavily taxed" comment either. That sounds purely punitive, especially when compared to cigarettes.

The Articles of Confederation basically made for a useless central government. The States loved it that way, but they didn't play nice with each other. The founders threw out the AoC to try and make the central gov't more useful, in order for States to cooperate with each other. They conceded while writing the Constitution by allowing States to send their own representatives in the Senate. The Constitution gave more clarity to what the States could do and what the federal govt could do. In the end, the States lost power when the Constitution was enacted. As time as gone own, the federal government has become, in my opinion, far too powerful. Which the founders did fear might happen.

Congress and the States have the ability to tax gun sales at whatever level they want. The 2nd Amendment can not stop that. That is what i mean by "heavily taxed". Banning private sales, frankly, I could see an argument for that being "infringing", so that probably won't happen.

(01-22-2013 12:00 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  I'll cut to the chase.

I call you intellectually dishonest because of this -- If you think the amendment is obsolete, you should propose it to be repealed.

However, you don't. You know it wouldn't happen. So, instead, you are for methods to chip-chip-chip away at it, incrementally, hoping to end up in the same place.

Not really. It's pointless to specifically repeal an obsolete law. For instance, the US Constitution still has provisions concerning the importation of slaves, but those sections were never specifically repealed.

Only if I accepted your interpretation of the Amendment would I feel the need to call for its repeal. You only need to repeal it if it's still enforceable. I don't think it is, so I think it's unnecessary. (Now, practically speaking, since the (conservative) SCOTUS has sided with your interpretation, I would like to see its repeal so states and towns can proceed and we can just put an end to the argument, but the correct way to proceed would be a different, more correct in my view interpretation by a new court.)

I'm not being intellectually dishonest. I think my reading of the Amendment is a very common, very defensible one. The right to bear arms was granted for a specific reason, and that reason is no more. So, the 2nd Amendment is toothless by its own terms.

Quote:We are going in circles on the rest, so I'm willing to quit arguing (for the time being). However, selfishly, I'm interested in some things you said above.

Can you tell me, without wikipedia-ing, what is an armor piercing bullet? I'm not trying to be an ass. It is obviously something that you feel strongly about. Tell me what you think it is, and how it is more "dangerous" than something else.

Without "wikipediaing" I would characterize it as a bullet that pierces body armor primarily if not exclusively used by police and military, and which probably is more likely to cause death or serious injury if it strikes you. That I think it's more dangerous for these reasons should be self evident.

Quote:What is a "large" magazine?

I'd go anything larger than 6 bullets. I've seen 10 bullets proposed in legislation, but 6 is my preference. If you need to use more than 6 bullets to defend yourself, it's probably because the police/FBI have surrounded your compound and you're not giving your crazy self up.

Quote:Is the same gun, whether pistol or rifle, less "dangerous" with a smaller magazine?

Yes, because you are forced time to reload. No matter what that time amounts to, it's time you can't spend firing more shots.

Quote:You do realize that the Colorado shooter had a gigantic, ridiculous magazine that jammed about three rounds in. As a practical product, those things are useless garbage because they are bulky, heavy and typically poorly made.

Great. So why are you insistent on defending it again?

Quote:If we could cut down on mass shootings by being more pro-active in instutionalizing the mentally ill, would you be for that? (I'm not saying I'm for that, I'm just throwing it out in the if we can save one person context).

I'm not sure about institutionalizing per se (If they're adjudged to be a threat to others, sure), but treatment should be more accessible.

(01-22-2013 09:45 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Actually, I think you are not correct there, historically. The Constitution, and largely the Bill of Rights, came from the States wanting a document that clearly limited Federal power and instead, empowered the States. That is why senators originally weren't directly elected. They were the representatives of the States, looking out for the States. We should all remember that the Founders intended the Federal goverment to be exceptionally limited and most things were to be handled at the State level. We are about as upside from that as we possibly could be.

No, the Constitution definitely wasn't written to empower the states. It was written because the Articles empowered the states too much. Just because the states elected senators doesn't mean they weren't ceding power.

The states all came together and ceded power to a central authority, and gave it fairly broad powers to:

Quote:The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The list of limitations on them isn't quite as long:

Quote:The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.[61]

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Plus, any state law that conflicted with the federal government must give way to the feds. This was not about empowering the states at all.

(01-23-2013 12:13 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, the first clause, makes no sense standing on its own. It’s called a dependent clause. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” makes sense standing on its own, so it’s an independent clause.

Yes, that's the Scalia English lesson. The second clause could independently stand on its own, but there's that pesky first clause which qualifies it.

Quote:But plain English supports the 2nd Amendment clearly saying “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state”.

So it follows that if a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state, that right is affected.

Quote:I implore, that rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.

What about the right to life? What about the right to have your government protect that right by restricting gun access to cut down on the 49 school shootings that have taken place since Columbine? What about the 10th Amendment rights of the states to control their guns?

(01-23-2013 05:18 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Not really. It's pointless to specifically repeal an obsolete law.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest. I think my reading of the Amendment is a very common, very defensible one. The right to bear arms was granted for a specific reason, and that reason is no more. So, the 2nd Amendment is toothless by its own terms.

Cool. So, we just ignore laws on the books depending on whim. Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is way out of the mainstream. I suggest you build a coalition and see how many people agree with you.

Max Power Wrote:

Quote:We are going in circles on the rest, so I'm willing to quit arguing (for the time being). However, selfishly, I'm interested in some things you said above.

Can you tell me, without wikipedia-ing, what is an armor piercing bullet? I'm not trying to be an ass. It is obviously something that you feel strongly about. Tell me what you think it is, and how it is more "dangerous" than something else.

Without "wikipediaing" I would characterize it as a bullet that pierces body armor primarily if not exclusively used by police and military, and which probably is more likely to cause death or serious injury if it strikes you. That I think it's more dangerous for these reasons should be self evident.

Here's that sticky wicket. See, the police generally wear Kevlar vests. The military wears different vests, tougher vests. Generally ANY hunting round will pierce a Kevlar vest. Kevlar vests only stop most handgun rounds (less energy and speed). You can take Grandpa's huntin' (hat tip to John Kerry) rifle and put a deer round right through a Kevlar vest. The only thing that will slow down or stop certain rifle rounds are ballistic plates.

A true armor piercing round will punch through thin steel. George Bush already restricted those. So. you should thank him.

So, if you want to restrict any round that will go through the average police vest, you'll be grabbing every deer cartridge that exists.

Max Power Wrote:

Quote:What is a "large" magazine?

I'd go anything larger than 6 bullets. I've seen 10 bullets proposed in legislation, but 6 is my preference. If you need to use more than 6 bullets to defend yourself, it's probably because the police/FBI have surrounded your compound and you're not giving your crazy self up.

So, since some existing revolvers can hold seven rounds, we'll get rid of those right off the bat. Most handguns come from the manufacturer with magazines that hold many more rounds than six. And, I can buy a surplus WWII Garand from the government that holds eight rounds.

You know how many rounds you need to defend yourself? Enough to make the threat stop. That is how the FBI trains their agents. Shoot until you don't need to shoot any longer.

Max Power Wrote:

Quote:Is the same gun, whether pistol or rifle, less "dangerous" with a smaller magazine?

Yes, because you are forced time to reload. No matter what that time amounts to, it's time you can't spend firing more shots.

It takes a couple of seconds to reload. You really think that would have mattered in Connecticut? At Virginia Tech? Absolutely not.

Max Power Wrote:

Quote:You do realize that the Colorado shooter had a gigantic, ridiculous magazine that jammed about three rounds in. As a practical product, those things are useless garbage because they are bulky, heavy and typically poorly made.

Great. So why are you insistent on defending it again?

I'm saying that banning them achieves nothing. In fact, if he would have had smaller, more reliable magazines, he would have done even more killing. However, I realize you aren't about doing something effective or meaninful. Restricting guns is merely a means to control people even further. That is what it is all about.

Max Power Wrote:

Quote:If we could cut down on mass shootings by being more pro-active in instutionalizing the mentally ill, would you be for that? (I'm not saying I'm for that, I'm just throwing it out in the if we can save one person context).

I'm not sure about institutionalizing per se (If they're adjudged to be a threat to others, sure), but treatment should be more accessible.

Oh, ok. So the saving one life doesn't hold here. And, since most mentally ill people are likely not interested in treatment, making it even more accessible (since it already is accessible) does what?

(01-24-2013 10:07 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Cool. So, we just ignore laws on the books depending on whim. Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is way out of the mainstream. I suggest you build a coalition and see how many people agree with you.

"On a whim?" I suggest you re-read every post I've made in this thread, because either nothing I've said to you has sinked in, or you're being "intellectually dishonest."

There's an easy explanation for the fact most people say that about the 2nd Amendment. Most people haven't actually read the Amendment, and aren't aware of the first clause.

(01-24-2013 10:07 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Here's that sticky wicket. See, the police generally wear Kevlar vests. The military wears different vests, tougher vests. Generally ANY hunting round will pierce a Kevlar vest. Kevlar vests only stop most handgun rounds (less energy and speed). You can take Grandpa's huntin' (hat tip to John Kerry) rifle and put a deer round right through a Kevlar vest. The only thing that will slow down or stop certain rifle rounds are ballistic plates.

A true armor piercing round will punch through thin steel. George Bush already restricted those. So. you should thank him.

So, if you want to restrict any round that will go through the average police vest, you'll be grabbing every deer cartridge that exists.

And you researched all that to tell me what? Some hunters will be inconvenienced? I'm not changing my position.

Maybe as a practical matter if you were designing legislation today you'd have to exempt deer cartridges used in single-fire shotguns, since they're not as easily used in sprees.

(01-24-2013 10:07 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  So, since some existing revolvers can hold seven rounds, we'll get rid of those right off the bat. Most handguns come from the manufacturer with magazines that hold many more rounds than six. And, I can buy a surplus WWII Garand from the government that holds eight rounds.

Good to know. They/you won't anymore if I had my way.

(01-24-2013 10:07 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  You know how many rounds you need to defend yourself? Enough to make the threat stop. That is how the FBI trains their agents. Shoot until you don't need to shoot any longer.

You know how many rounds does a mass shooter need to kill 50 people?

(01-24-2013 10:07 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  It takes a couple of seconds to reload. You really think that would have mattered in Connecticut? At Virginia Tech? Absolutely not.

(01-24-2013 10:07 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  I'm saying that banning them achieves nothing. In fact, if he would have had smaller, more reliable magazines, he would have done even more killing.

Whether it did matter in these instances, it absolutely could matter in the future.

This is probably the argument I find most annoying from the NRA. "But the Newtown shooter didn't use an assault weapon!!1!"

It makes no difference. We could find out he used a spear and it wouldn't make a difference. It doesn't change the fact that a magazine limit, assault weapon ban and armor piercing bullet ban can conceivably save lives. Quit being disingenuous.

(01-24-2013 10:07 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  However, I realize you aren't about doing something effective or meaninful. Restricting guns is merely a means to control people even further. That is what it is all about.

Now we're delving into crazy Beck territory. I want to "control" people. This is really all about my insatiable appetite to "control" people.

It has nothing to do the fact I was two blocks away from the NIU shooting in 2008 and I'm sick and tired of seeing organizations like the NRA suppress even reasonable debate about gun safety, as it did then, time and again, even after watching these mass shooting crop up every two months or so. I'm not tired of seeing the NRA fight harder for neo Nazi type gun nuts' rights to buy 100 round magazine Bushmasters on the streets of Arizona without a background check than parents' rights to send their kids to school with the most peace of mind their government can give them. No, it's all about some vague notion of "control."

(01-24-2013 10:07 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Oh, ok. So the saving one life doesn't hold here. And, since most mentally ill people are likely not interested in treatment, making it even more accessible (since it already is accessible) does what?

Involuntarily locking up people, needless to say, is a great deprivation of liberty. That needs to be handled on a case by case basis balancing public safety and the person's right to live on his own. Taking away some gun nut's "right" to buy a 100 magazine bushmaster without a background check, I'm less sympathetic to.

Some do. It gives help to those who want it.

Every one of Obama's proposals has majority support by at least 11 points per Gallup--

Obama may have the opportunity to switch the Courts make-up and affect the next 2 amendment interpretation.
Public opinion is switching to more aggressive federal involvement in the regulation of weapons and to a less conservative interpretation of the the 2nd amendment. If the NRA and other supporters of a conservative interpretation were smart they would moderate their rhetoric and sit at a table to come up with meaningful regulation and enforcement.

If they dont, a few years down the line they may very well find themselves at a point where they have no say and laws enacted become even more stringent that currently suggested.

Max Power Wrote:There's an easy explanation for the fact most people say that about the 2nd Amendment. Most people haven't actually read the Amendment, and aren't aware of the first clause.

Most people are ignorant. Got it. Let us know what it feels like to be one of the elite who "get it."

It couldn't be that just about everyone, including the courts, disagree with you.

Max Power Wrote:

(01-24-2013 10:07 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Here's that sticky wicket. See, the police generally wear Kevlar vests. The military wears different vests, tougher vests. Generally ANY hunting round will pierce a Kevlar vest. Kevlar vests only stop most handgun rounds (less energy and speed). You can take Grandpa's huntin' (hat tip to John Kerry) rifle and put a deer round right through a Kevlar vest. The only thing that will slow down or stop certain rifle rounds are ballistic plates.

A true armor piercing round will punch through thin steel. George Bush already restricted those. So. you should thank him.

So, if you want to restrict any round that will go through the average police vest, you'll be grabbing every deer cartridge that exists.

And you researched all that to tell me what? Some hunters will be inconvenienced? I'm not changing my position.

Maybe as a practical matter if you were designing legislation today you'd have to exempt deer cartridges used in single-fire shotguns, since they're not as easily used in sprees.

Actually, Max, knowledge is your friend. The point is you should try to educate yourself on what you want to ban. Since you don't know what you are talking about, the only fair conclusion to draw is that this is entirely emotionally driven with you, and not factually based.

Do some reading. Talk to a cop/agent. Maybe you'd be enlightened. At least you'd be making an effort.

It isn't that hunters will be inconvenienced, it is that it eliminates a wide swath of what the pro-gun regulation crowd claims they don't want to do. It grabs guns/ammo that is used by a great, great many people just to hunt. It points out that "armor piercing" is, again, a very clearly, calculated phrase meant to elicit an emotional, not a rational action.

Max Power Wrote:

(01-24-2013 10:07 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  So, since some existing revolvers can hold seven rounds, we'll get rid of those right off the bat. Most handguns come from the manufacturer with magazines that hold many more rounds than six. And, I can buy a surplus WWII Garand from the government that holds eight rounds.

Good to know. They/you won't anymore if I had my way.

Glad to hear you admit to being a gun grabber.

Max Power Wrote:

(01-24-2013 10:07 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  You know how many rounds you need to defend yourself? Enough to make the threat stop. That is how the FBI trains their agents. Shoot until you don't need to shoot any longer.

You know how many rounds does a mass shooter need to kill 50 people?

It isn't germane to the discussion on the size of a magazine. He can carry many magazines with him, can't he? When those little kids were caught in a classroom(s) in Connecticut, do you really think it mattered if he had five ten round magazines or ten five round magazines? Not one bit.

Max Power Wrote:

(01-24-2013 10:07 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  It takes a couple of seconds to reload. You really think that would have mattered in Connecticut? At Virginia Tech? Absolutely not.

(01-24-2013 10:07 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  I'm saying that banning them achieves nothing. In fact, if he would have had smaller, more reliable magazines, he would have done even more killing.

Whether it did matter in these instances, it absolutely could matter in the future.

This is probably the argument I find most annoying from the NRA. "But the Newtown shooter didn't use an assault weapon!!1!"

It makes no difference. We could find out he used a spear and it wouldn't make a difference. It doesn't change the fact that a magazine limit, assault weapon ban and armor piercing bullet ban can conceivably save lives. Quit being disingenuous..

Sure. If no gun exists, you can't be shot by one. Ever. But, like in England, I'll get hit over by a hammer and killed that way more often than I am now. Good to know that evil lies in the tool, not the action. On one hand, you propose that gun control would have addressed these school shootings. On the other hand, you can't say how. That is disingenuous.

Max Power Wrote:

(01-24-2013 10:07 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Oh, ok. So the saving one life doesn't hold here. And, since most mentally ill people are likely not interested in treatment, making it even more accessible (since it already is accessible) does what?

Involuntarily locking up people, needless to say, is a great deprivation of liberty. That needs to be handled on a case by case basis balancing public safety and the person's right to live on his own. Taking away some gun nut's "right" to buy a 100 magazine bushmaster without a background check, I'm less sympathetic to.

Some do. It gives help to those who want it.

Cool. Liberty goes a very short way in the liberal world.

Tell me again how many of these mass shootings (or the 500 murders last year in Chicago) were done by AR's with 100 round magazines? Well, again, not even the one in Colorado, since that a-hole didn't even have a functional 100 round magazine.

(01-24-2013 01:19 PM)BobL Wrote:  Obama may have the opportunity to switch the Courts make-up and affect the next 2 amendment interpretation.
Public opinion is switching to more aggressive federal involvement in the regulation of weapons and to a less conservative interpretation of the the 2nd amendment. If the NRA and other supporters of a conservative interpretation were smart they would moderate their rhetoric and sit at a table to come up with meaningful regulation and enforcement.

If they dont, a few years down the line they may very well find themselves at a point where they have no say and laws enacted become even more stringent that currently suggested.

Bob:

With all due respect, the polls taken recently don't show a significant shift in the public's opinion of new gun laws. In the last twenty years, it hasn't changed in any meaninful fashion.

So, to take your point, you are saying that if the NRA agrees to ban "assault weapons," then the President will appoint less liberal justices?

We have meaningful regulation. We have a tremendous amount of regulation Much enforcement already isn't being done. The much touted executive orders highlighted that. The President signed an E.O. saying he should nominate a new head to the ATF? Huh? He could have already done that and didn't need an E.O. to simply do his job.