I just want one gun nut explain to me why the 2nd Amendment overrides the right to life

[liberal N proud]

Life Liberty and the Persuite of happiness comes before any gun in our Constitution.

[guillaumeb]

1. Recommended.

Apparently the right to indulge in one's personal weapons fantasies overrides all other rights.

[ProudLib72]

2. Simple.

Guns protect someone's right to life in the event someone else is trying to take it.

So, on the off chance that someone is trying to kill you, you can protect your first amendment right.

[liberal N proud]

19. But if there wasn't such easy access, there wouldn't need to be the mass ownership

Ownership under the guise of "self-defense"

[ProudLib72]

31. I didn't say it was a good explanation

It is the gun humper explanation. Try to argue with them and you'll soon find yourself scampering deep into the rabbit hole.

They will refute you with illegal guns, knives, crossbows, whatever they can. As long as there is the slightest chance their lives (or lives of relations/SOs/neighbors) are in some kind of danger, that remains the excuse. This is particularly true now that the threat of gun regulation looms large on their horizon. "So you want to take the guns from the good guys and leave us with no way to defend ourselves against the bad guys?"

Basically, you are not going to win an argument against an irrational person.

[bitterross]

100. You are so right. There is not a way to win. Remember War Games?

The only way to win is not to play the game.

[BobTheSubgenius]

110. That "alternate weapons" argument is a total non-starter.

Yeah, you can kill someone just as dead with a hammer. But how many people are going to sit in a theater, church, school, what-have-you and wait their turn?

Besides that, with some training andor natural ability, you can defend against a hammer with your bare hands. Guns, less so.

[forgotmylogin]

125. And similarly, we now know that standard bullet wounds

are relatively survivable, whereas the AR-15 takes huge chunks out of people and destroys organs.

All firearms give a shooter a "safe" distance logistically and psychologically. I'd guess committing a massacre with a hammer is going to require some work and commitment.

[ProudLib72]

129. One time I tried to board a plane with a hammer in my carryon

Security said "No" of course. In hindsight it was a stupid move to try and take a hammer on board, but still...

Another time, I took some snacks on board. There was some fruit in a can. I remember peeling the lid off the can, staring at the very sharp, serrated edge, and thinking "I could easily cut someone's throat with this".

My point is, there are plenty of ways someone can injure another person. Some of them are less obvious than others. There is no way to guard against every single possibility, so there is not much use in trying. The paranoid few are going to say that a gun is the best possible defense against any sort of attack. That's just bullshit. So far our government has told them, "Ok, we will pander to your paranoia. We don't see much harm in it". Now, though, they are getting pushback. Now they will have to listen to the statistics and admit that catering to a few nut jobs is not the best course of action (or non-action as the case may be).

[Straw Man]

145. What is a "standard bullet wound"?

And similarly, we now know that standard bullet wounds

are relatively survivable, whereas the AR-15 takes huge chunks out of people and destroys organs.

As does any deer rifle under the sun.

[forgotmylogin]

179. How many times does a "deer rifle" fire before reloading?

You seem to be following the "cars can be deadly too" argument. That doesn't nullify the point.

I mean "standard bullet wound" as described in this article as "typical handgun injury".

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

In a typical handgun injury that I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ like the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, grey bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

I believe in an ideal situation, a hunter intends to do as little damage as possible to their quarry, whether the intention is for meat or for trophy purposes. If the deer's face is mangled, it's not going to look good on someone's wall.

[Straw Man]

182. It varies and is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

How many times does a "deer rifle" fire before reloading?

Does it take a detachable magazine? What size magazines are available for it? Is it bolt action or semi-auto? You were talking about what kind of damage its projectile does. Are we now talking about rate of fire? That wasn't the topic under discussion.

I mean "standard bullet wound" as described in this article as "typical handgun injury".

So you (and the writer of the article) are comparing the wounds from rifle rounds with the wounds from handgun rounds. Obviously rifle rounds -- ALL rifle rounds -- are more damaging. The .223 is not unique in this respect.

I believe in an ideal situation, a hunter intends to do as little damage as possible to their quarry, whether the intention is for meat or for trophy purposes. If the deer's face is mangled, it's not going to look good on someone's wall.

Incorrect. Hunters generally use hollowpoint bullets because the expansion causes more damage and therefore a quicker death. The target zone is the heart/lung area, so as to immediately incapacitate the animal but damage neither meat nor trophy.

[forgotmylogin]

183. Clearing away your Straw Man + Reductio Ad Absurdum argument

As someone who hasn't read the gun catalog front to back and could care less about what doodad attaches to what other thing, let's reduce it further: if it's that complicated, let's just ban guns altogether.

My point, in short, is weapons that do "rifle damage" and can be rapid-fired should not be in the hands of a civilian. They are only appropriate on military battlegrounds.

Rifles and shotguns should be limited to 1-2 shots depending on how they're built which should be fine in a hunting situation - if you have to fire more than twice, you've scared the quarry off already.

Handguns should be limited to six shots, and injuries from those weapons are (generally) much more survivable than that of a rifle or an AR-15. If a lawful handgun owner cannot defend themselves in fewer than six shots, they have bigger problems than what weaponry they have access to.

In the rare event of a "massacre shooter" situation, the perpetrator would need to carry multiple pre-loaded weapons, which works against what they are trying to do.

Shooting multiple people should not be easy.

[Straw Man]

184. I simply stated facts -- no "straw" and no "reductio."

As someone who hasn't read the gun catalog front to back and could care less about what doodad attaches to what other thing, let's reduce it further: if it's that complicated, let's just ban guns altogether.

Legislation crafted out of fear and ignorance is generally poor and ineffective legislation. You'd rather scrap part of the Bill of Rights than educate yourself on the particulars of the issue. Good luck with that.

My point, in short, is weapons that do "rifle damage" and can be rapid-fired should not be in the hands of a civilian. They are only appropriate on military battlegrounds.

That wasn't the original point, which was bullet damage. Now you want to bring in rate of fire. No points for moving the goalposts.

Rifles and shotguns should be limited to 1-2 shots depending on how they're built which should be fine in a hunting situation - if you have to fire more than twice, you've scared the quarry off already.

But what about a home defense situation? Will two shots "scare off" the assailants?

Handguns should be limited to six shots, and injuries from those weapons are (generally) much more survivable than that of a rifle or an AR-15. If a lawful handgun owner cannot defend themselves in fewer than six shots, they have bigger problems than what weaponry they have access to.

Gun control advocates like to tout the "17% hit rate under stress." That means that only one of the rounds from your six-shooter will hit its target. Since, as you point out, these rounds are considerably less effective than rifle rounds, that doesn't look like very good odds for the good guy.

[krispos42]

32. You do realize that thousands of people a week...

Are killed, injured, and maimed by other people who did not use guns, right?

[quartz007]

41. Easy access to guns is 225 years old

with the result there are 1000 times more guns in civilian hands than any other country.

With 300 Million guns out there, sadly it is TOO LATE to confiscate/destroy guns. The law breakers will ignore all gun restriction laws. And guns can remain operable for 100 years.

Sadly only option left is to protect yourself with a gun if attacked by a gun wielding bad dude. Police won'r get there any faster than the bullet from the bad dude.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

59. Well, guns didn't protect all those kids in Florida last week, did they?

Especially when you recall that an armed officer hid outside while the massacre happened.

Lots of other examples.

No one's right to a gun should ever be more important than someone else's right to live. Simple.

[ProudLib72]

88. Read my response #31. You're getting angry at the wrong person.

[demigoddess]

230. agree with you. Apparently the armed guard had no effect on the outcome at all.

One thing that could be done is build the police station right next door to the schools. But then you would have all those criminals close by and perhaps even armed at times. Are all police stations safe? Because they all have armed and trained people in them.

[LonePirate]

177. Why not use a taser or baseball bat or dog? There is no need for this eye for an eye mentality.

[GP6971]

3. KnR

[Hoyt]

4. Because the white Jesus ordained gun rights.

[thbobby]

5. In a plutocracy

the rich make the rules. A democracy would be a welcomed change.

[aikoaiko]

6. The mere keeping and bearing of arms does not interfere with your right to life, etc.

[TheSmarterDog]

9. 30,000+ people a year would disagree.

If they could.

[aikoaiko]

28. Someone has to pull the trigger or otherwise discharge the firearms to kill someone.

Cameras and the internet don't cause kiddie porn.

Assembling doesn't cause riots.

etc.

[TheSmarterDog]

36. But, it makes it a hell of a lot easier.

And for no real purpose.

[quartz007]

44. How do we confiscate guns from law-breakers?

Law-breakers possess millions of guns. They are unlikely to surrender based on laws. Many are breaking laws right now because many are not allowed to possess firearms.

With easy access to guns for 225 years, sadly it is too late to abolish all civilian held guns. Protect yourself with whatever means because cops can't get there for 10-15 min after a 911 call.

[GoneOffShore]

57. Perhaps 'The Whisky Rebellion' solution is needed.

And that whole thing about on people not obeying the law?

When beating and raping your wife became illegal, it didn't stop men from beating and raping their wives...but over time the culture changes and people are held accountable. And then they are shamed and they know they are wrong, and ultimately some are punished. And then others. And eventually there is less beating and raping of wives. No, it doesn't immediately stop the problem. It takes generations. But we need to stop producing and selling weapons made to decimate multiple people at a time. And we need to get as many of these as possible off the streets and out of the trailers and suburbs.

[quartz007]

69. Crack-Cocaine is illegal, so are heroin,

prostitution, ganja, and all contraband substances. But all are available on black market. We are not the only country who knows how to manufacture guns. Americans are addicted to guns. Where there is demand, there will be supply from the same gang of thugs who supply illegal drugs.

In my city of Chicago, one of the richest dude was a man named Al Capone who got rich by .. you guessed it, supplying illegal booze.

[GoneOffShore]

85. Bless your heart. I love those talking points.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

90. Well there you go

You made my day. I thought I'd have to wait for tomorrow to find someone who thinks branding some subset of a discussion as talking points does anything other than highlight an inability to argue against them.

[quartz007]

94. Facts are now called talking points?

OK partner!

[GoneOffShore]

122. You're arguing that just because people disobey laws that there shouldn't be laws.

So, as the saying goes.
Buh bye.

[quartz007]

139. Read post #109 before you reach conclusions

[Straw Man]

146. No.

The argument is that laws that prohibit harmless activities (owning a gun) in order to prevent harmful activities (shooting someone) are misdirected and ineffectual. The person who intends to commit the harmful activity doesn't give a shit about the lesser prohibition against the harmless activity. The law is only followed by people who don't intend to commit the harmful activity, and is therefore completely useless.

Look up malum in se and malum prohibitum.

[Ferrets are Cool]

124. I get so tired of this fucking shit. We don't have to reinvent the wheel...

Other countries, Australia for one, found a way to minimize gun fatalities. If they can, we can. Fuck this "it's too late to change" shit.

[quartz007]

132. LOL your problem is lack of facts

Australia took 0.7 million guns out of circulation.
United States has 300 Million guns in private hands.

I guess size does not matter to you.

Australia is a very small country by population,
about 6.5% of USA.

And Australia has very strict immigration laws, and
has no illegals floating across the border (it is surrounded by oceans)

https://www.google.com/search?ei=2ouTWt30IcPgjwTYuZ-wCA&q=how+many+guns+in+the+united+states&oq=how+many+guns+in&gs_l=psy-ab.1.2.0i131k1j0l9.21136.21407.0.24207.2.2.0.0.0.0.163.300.0j2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.2.298....0.tz2dTWA9ay4

[Ferrets are Cool]

180. You're in the wrong place if you want to promote guns

and YOUR facts that there is nothing to be done for our problems.

[quartz007]

197. Huh?

You offer no substantive counter-arguments.
Because you have none. So you resort to platitudes.

[Igel]

107. Same's true for the other things.

But we like the Internet and cameras. We don't have uses for guns.

My father didn't use the Internet nor did he see a reason for it before he died. His attitude was that if the Internet is helping criminals and such, shut it down. We got along fine without it for most of his life and child pornographers, drug dealers, etc., had a somewhat harder time (he thought), why be their enablers?

Then again, I've known a lot of Russians whose attitude towards alcohol was that it wasn't the alcohol that killed you, it was the drinking of it. Or the methanol they put in it, but even that required drinking. The booze didn't just come rushing out of the liquor stores and jump down your throat (whatever uncle Fedya or whoever might claim).

[hack89]

175. You don't have a use for a gun

many others, like myself, do.

[EX500rider]

73. 20,000 or so of those don't interfere with your right to anything as they are suicides.

[moriah]

111. And the people mental health regulations/cooldown periods would protect the most.

Friend had an enforced cooldown because his previous DUIs didn't let him instantly qualify. Tried to purchase on a Thursday, when the check still wasn't back that weekend he had enough time for the survival instinct to kick in enough to tell me his plans. When he wouldn't go voluntarily (I think he knew the consequences and the survival instinct was driving him to get it on the record he didn't need guns), another friend tape-recorded him to back up his initial reach-out over instant messaging and then it was a race to get him served with the order. When we couldn't that Monday my friend parked in his driveway to block him in so he could be served.

Once he was safe, we took the receipt for the gun to the pawn shop. He said he left his money because someone could have bought it out from under him and hadn't actually gotten it in his hands yet, but we needed to be sure it wasn't hidden somewhere for when he got out. His check either cleared or the 72 hours during business days thing had elapsed, because it was a Tuesday... they said they would have sold it to him that day if he'd shown up. Temporary orders don't hit NCIS, only after a hearing determines involuntary treatment is necessary do you lose gun rights here.

He's on medication now for his bipolar disorder and doing better.

Still, I can only pray a private party checks the state website for his name if he goes on Gunslist here in our state.

[raging moderate]

126. Thank you all. You are great friends.

Not only to your friend. Also to other people around him.

[EX500rider]

137. That's good..

...but most people can think of many ways to kill themselves, many as or more final then guns like jumping off tall buildings/bridges, hanging etc.

http://frater.com/suicidelist.html

[moriah]

178. Yet firearm suicides are among the most fatal of methods.

And disproportionately affect men, too, since women may try more often but the success inherent in firearms is significant enough that more more men die from suicude attempts than women.

[EX500rider]

187. Generally the ones who don't succeed weren't really trying. More a cry for help/attention

Jumping off high buildings/bridges, hanging, jumping in front of train/truck all most 100% fatal. More likely to survive a gunshot wound to the head.

Globally, death by suicide occurred about 1.8 times more often among males than among females.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide

[moriah]

189. Well, even among women pretty serious (like, still nameless) poisoning or OD...

... was far more common than gunshot (two according to the Doe Network, edit to add it's quite possible one was dying of cancer, and that victim was found in Texas. The other was in Arizona. I speak about these cases because somebody knows who these people are, and while I dedicate time to the cause of the missing and unidentified for personal reasons, the suicides in that population haunt me right behind the unidentified children. So many people think no one will miss them or care when they're suicidal, and until we get IDs ot would seem those individuals were correct. At least one wasn't, Holly Glenn.)

Some were quite creative compared to the men, though, where a number (edit: five male unidentified gunshot suicide victims on the first page of the search, to one female) still unidentified are from gunshot. One starved herself to death (she's since been identified), and another set herself on fire. Hanging, jumping, and trains were also in there in both sexes, but ingestion of toxins seem to be more common even with women deliberately trying not to be identified (aka, definitely not wanting attention).

[liberal N proud]

20. Tell that to the dead!

[aikoaiko]

26. There needs to be an additional step(s) for gun violence to occur.

[brush]

38. Why is the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment left out?

[quartz007]

46. 2nd Amendment could be abolished today,

but millions of guns will remain in hands of law-breakers and guns are known to be operable for 100 years. Sadly it is too late in this country to abolish civilian guns.

[brush]

50. Making automatic or semi-auto attachments illegal will help though.

[quartz007]

71. Agreed 100%

Anything will help. I am certainly for making it illegal to sell AR-15 type weapons.

But to protect our defenseless school kids, we need IMMEDIATE action. Armed guards and training teacher volunteers in use of firearms will be of immediate help.

[brush]

76. School officers with weapons to match the crazies is fine with me but arming and training...

teachers is, IMO, not good.

Adding more weapons in schools to me seems to be going in the wrong direction as that just adds even more weapons to society when we should be going the other way.

And I'm betting that teachers don't want to be armed guards as that's anti-thetical to their mission.

[quartz007]

91. Some Teachers in Missouri are already armed

Results should be keenly observed.

Have you noticed every school mass shootings and even Fort Hood mass murders were in gun free zones?

[brush]

97. Gun-free zones, huh? Sounds like a gun humper buzz word IMO.

How about and automatic, semi-auto converted to auto free society?

And while we're at it, how about strict background checks, registration for every purchased arm, an insurance fund funded by arms manufacturers, sellers and buyers and a maximum capacity of magazines of a sensible size of 5-6 as hunting rifles have had for decades?

After all these AR-15s are for hunting, right (wink, wink).

Animals, right, not humans, right, where you don't need a hundreds-of-rounds-per-minute capability, right?

[quartz007]

109. Obviously you have not read all my posts..

I will go through the trouble to summarize for you.

I am...

1) against sale of AR-15 type weapons to civilians

2) for seriously detailed background check especially mental problems, past violent behavior and felonies

3) for limiting magazine size to 7 bullets. If one can't drop an intruder/attacker in 7 tries, one is a horrible shooter and should not bother with guns.

4) I am for registration if it is cost free to people with limited means. I am against expensive registration process. Besides criminals will not bother to register, and you won't know that until they are apprehended/arrested with a gun in possession.

5) only guns available to civilians should be shot guns which require manual loading of 2 bullets at a time, and handguns with 7 or less rounds capacity.

6) Minimum 2 week waiting period to purchase any gun,
unless the individual is under threat for bodily harm as reported to police.

7) Against gun restrictions in school for teachers who have passed stringent background check and trained to use their firearm in a safe and skillful manner.

[brush]

131. Ok. We're mostly on the same page. #7 is iffy to me though.

I say arm school security adequately so teachers can teach and not worry about whether they will someday have to fire at an intruder and maybe kill a student.

[quartz007]

133. As they say,

don't knock it before you try it.
Reason I am willing to give that a try is because teachers know their students by first and last name and generally love their students. At least that was my experience as a student. And teachers have the closest presence in class with students. An armed guard could be anywhere as was the case in Parkland. He was not even inside the building.

[aikoaiko]

52. Its not. The people keep and bear arms from which a militia can be drawn.

It just that it wasn't important in the discussion.

[brush]

58. Yeah, another way to weasel out of the intent of the 2nd written when single shot...

muskets were the state of the art.

The founding fathers certainly wouldn't have approved of teenagers and 40-something maniacs like the guy in Vegas blasting away people with bump stock-aided semi-automatic weapons.

If you think that...

[brush]

65. Not important? Seems very important in light of all the crazies out there blasting people...

away in an unregulated manner.

[Bettie]

62. They don't like that part

you see, guns are WAY more important than the lives of mere human beings. Guns make them feel bigger, better...the idea of some day getting to kill someone in "self-defense" is the biggest aphrodisiac out there for gun nuts.

[AncientGeezer]

82. It's not...but SCOTUS has ruled that the prefatory clause doesn't negate the

..operative clause...
( Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.)

[brush]

89. Would a less wordy definition be pretzeling to allow gun nuts free reign, or even simpler...

Scaliaism?

[AncientGeezer]

95. Would President Obama' words work for you?

"Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start — and I’ve said this over and over again, this also becomes routine, there is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do — I believe in the Second Amendment. It’s there written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around — I taught constitutional law, I know a little about this — "

If not his... who would you accept?

[brush]

99. See my post 97. The 2nd Amendment desperately needs amending. Not abolishment mind you.

[AncientGeezer]

104. Start the process....I was a kid in school when we tried to get the ERA passed..

How's that working out?
You want to try to amend part of The Bill of Rights...good luck with that.

[brush]

106. No need for snark. If it needs fixing it needs fixing. And you and I both know it does.

And just like there are additional amendments added to the original ten (the Bill of Rights), it can be done.

Defeatism will get you nowhere.

[AncientGeezer]

112. I do NOT know ANY part of the BoR's need fixing....

"And just like there are additional amendments added to the original ten (the Bill of Rights),...but the ORIGINAL 10, the Bill of Rights have NOT been touched since ratification in 1791....and won't be in any of our lifetimes.

There have been a grand total of 17 amendments since 1791...NONE of which touched the BoR's

[brush]

118. The Bill of Rights improved the Constitution, which kinda leads to the thought that if...

the Constitution needed improvement, the Bill of Rights, when technological reality slams us in face (hundreds-of-rounds-per-minute automatic and semi-autos easily converted to automatic weapons)—the Second Admendment part of it—unquestionably needs improvement.

The Florida killings just slammed us in the face YET AGAIN, that it needs to be improved upon.

It's not sacrilege to say or think that. The founding fathers would kick us all in the ass if they came back and found out that we're letting mentally disturbed killers have access to automatic weapons.

The country is broken in this regard and it's taken teenagers to make a lot of people see that.

[AncientGeezer]

140. You can't back your claim with ANY supporting source...

&quot hundreds-of-rounds-per-minute automatic and semi-autos easily converted to automatic weapons)" Try.
Automatic weapons are very restricted...and a bump stock doesn't make a semi auto into an automatic...the gun doesn't work that way.
We've been over this.

[brush]

142. Here's this video. AGAIN.

[AncientGeezer]

174. Not a bump stock..NOT an AR-15 read the description

Not the thumbnail tag. They mislabel these all the time for hits and you have given this vid of an auto M-4 variant several hits

[brush]

186. Did you listen? The guy says it's an AR-15 and he's using the bump fire method.

[AncientGeezer]

198. NOBODY says ANYTHING in that video...did you read the "ballons"

[brush]

202. Here you go. But the whole point is there is no need for civilians to have this or variants. Agreed?

[AncientGeezer]

203. That's a 9mm pistol....and not a bump stock....because it's a pistol.

[brush]

204. Ahhh...what about my point that those weapons and VARIANTS with near-automatic...

capability whether by bump stock or other device should not be in the hands of civilians like the Florida school killer or the Las Vegas concert killer?

[AncientGeezer]

225. Wasn't in the hands of the Fl asswipe...In Vegas it prooved to be ineffective...

none were.."..with near-automatic capability..."...NOT even close.
You have hung your hat on that narrative... but it's factually WRONG.

If you want effective fixes to the mess...you have to....should know, what you are talking about and not post videos that show YOU wrong.

I can't speak on women, minority, or LGBT issues...I'm a straight, old, white, guy...I have NO clue about what they suffer...but I don't post vids about the issue that have NOTHING to do with their issues

[Skittles]

7. they won't explain how their fear overrides common sense

they're assholes

[hack89]

8. It doesn't

But because it is an enumerated constitutional right it is given significant legal protections that can't be ignored. All parts of the Bill of Rights are equal.

[Eliot Rosewater]

10. Militia only. Plus any RATIONAL person would draw a distinction

between guns then and now and say that NO MATTER how the 2nd was written , that it had to go.

Irrational thought process is "I want one so I will have one no matter who it harms"

[MichMary]

12. The Supreme Court begs to disagree n/t

[Eliot Rosewater]

24. Your quoting the GOD DAMN Scallia bullshit decision?

[MichMary]

27. No, I'm telling you

that the Supreme Court decided that there is indeed an individual right to gun ownership. You are free to disagree, but the SC is the final arbiter of Constitutional matters.

When you become a Supreme Court justice, THEN your opinion will matter.

[hack89]

14. Absolutely nothing stopping an AWB right now. The 2A is not the issue

You don't have the deep, broad public support you need. Get the votes and it doesn't matter what the 2A says about militias.

[pnwmom]

56. And a "well-regulated militia," specifically. n/t

[AncientGeezer]

84. Irrelavant...

Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

[liberal N proud]

21. Because the 2nd Amendment has been cherry picked

Leaving out "well regulated"

[hack89]

29. It allows very strict regulation

AWBs, registration, magazine limits, licensing, and mandatory safety training are all perfectly constitutional. The 2A is not the issue here - it is the lack of wide and deep public support for many gun control measures. The votes aren't there.

[bettyellen]

63. Public support is there! Its politicians who are too easily bought by the NRA who dont care...

The NRAs financial power makes them a business association for gun makers- not a rep of the people.

[hack89]

74. Not really

Remember we don't do national referendums so how that support is distributed is critical. There are many pro-gun states that do not support gun control so their reps and senators will not vote for it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

79. Who is it that elects those politicians?

Is it the same folks who support lots more regulation?
If so, how can that be?

[bettyellen]

93. They dont pay attention to the fine points of policy. Many do not.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

176. With over 20 years of momentum, why is that?

I have a few thoughts. IMHO pro-GC organizations are all over the map. They lack a focus. Being a pro-RKBA person, I seriously appreciate a certain level of regulation but there are some ideas out there that are entirely ridiculous.
> Banning all semi-autos is probably never going to happen.
> Banning all handguns is probably never going to happen.
> Improving background checks can absolutely happen and help.
> Making BGCs available for private sales will probably help.

How many twit-face-insta-book clues have there been about many mass shooters? How well staffed is law enforcement to pursue investigating these incidents? It seems to me that leadership for the pro-regulation group is fragmented into sound bite friendly directions. One mayor or Congressional candidate is down a rabbit hole on some a ban that won't happen while others are pursuing a different holy grail. Obama started a discussion on what can be done and so many other politicians made a grab for attention with unrealistic ideas that just alienate certain gun owners.

A third of the country owns a gun. There are more guns than people in the US. It seems to me that finding and funding ways to empower lawful owners will cut the prevalence of unlawful acts and the danger of allowing guns to reach criminals. The US is supposed to be the land of freedom. "Control" sounds like the opposite of that. I'm sure that some voters only vote Republican over the gun issue. I'm sure that some Republicans only ally with the NRA because it's a wedge between the parties.

I see the pro-regulation folks grabbing on to any ideas that float by. Five years ago I saw a push for universal background checks and a poll that said 90% of the US was in favor. I believe that would be a great thing. All the talk of "well it's a good start" and "we can begin with that" are just shots at foot of any progress.

Have a good day.

[bettyellen]

191. more blather about how complicated it is to regulate at all. LOL. You need a new script.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

192. And back at you

RKBA progress over the past few decades is evident.
"Control" progress is not.

Maybe it is the pro-regulation side that needs a "new script".

[bettyellen]

193. Sensible regulation has never been more popular- and its this NRA nonsense that tries

To pick away at any real progress that people are fed up with. The NRA doesn’t trepresent the majority of the voters- who DO want improved regulations and know it is not “impossible”.

[Straw Man]

149. Not really.

The True Source of the N.R.A.’s Clout: Mobilization, Not Donations

By ERIC LIPTON and ALEXANDER BURNS FEB. 24, 2018

WASHINGTON — Few places have seen the National Rifle Association wield its might more effectively than Florida, where it has advanced a sweeping agenda that has made it easier to carry concealed weapons, given gun owners greater leeway to shoot in self-defense and even briefly barred doctors from asking patients about their firearms.

To many of its opponents, that decades-long string of victories is proof that the N.R.A. has bought its political support. But the numbers tell a more complicated story: The organization’s political action committee over the last decade has not made a single direct contribution to any current member of the Florida House or Senate, according to campaign finance records.

In Florida and other states across the country, as well as on Capitol Hill, the N.R.A. derives its political influence instead from a muscular electioneering machine, fueled by tens of millions of dollars’ worth of campaign ads and voter-guide mailings, that scrutinizes candidates for their views on guns and propels members to the polls.

--https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/24/us/politics/nra-gun-control-florida.html

[bettyellen]

156. So that they have a two pronged approach matters why? They are the horses pulling the cart...

And they are fast losing credibility. And yes- they spend tons of money on politicians and in races. What’s the big news here?

[MichMary]

11. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

isn't in the Constitution. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

I am not a gun owner, let alone a "gun nut," (although I know people who are.) But the hyperbole and the fascism shown here over this issue is appalling. Label the NRA a "terrorist organization?" Treat NRA members the same way sex offenders are treated? I've read it all her in the last few minutes.

Really. People should get a grip and do what they can to pressure Congress to pass reasonable, common sense regulations. Do what they can to get school authorities, law enforcement, and social services to take serious threats _seriously_.

My goodness, complaints about the square root symbol looking like a gun are taken more seriously than some clown announcing on YouTube (under his own name) that he wants to become a professional school shooter.

[LuckyCharms]

13. Hyperbole? Fascism?

Tell that to the families of those who were ripped apart by bullets. Go ahead...tell them about their hyperbole. Do it.

[MichMary]

16. Here's one example:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210289579

[LuckyCharms]

17. Yeah I read it and see nothing wrong with it.

Next?

[MichMary]

23. Okay

Seems like a large number of people on that thread found it to be as over-the-top as I did.

[LuckyCharms]

25. So what.

[sarisataka]

34. Some people are biting at any bait

The boar was especially obvious but many feel for it

[MichMary]

37. LOL! n/t

[Baconator]

55. I'll help you out...

It's a big reason why no significant reforms have been passed and why gun rights have only grown in recent years.

[LuckyCharms]

60. No need for help.

I don't accept that premise at all. If I am understanding your post correctly, you are talking about the fact that some people do not want to take baby steps?

[Baconator]

66. I'm saying that demonization, hyperbole and broad brush attacks...

... don't seem to be getting the movement to where it wants to be.

[LuckyCharms]

72. First, It's not hyperbole when people are getting ripped apart.

2) Maybe a broad brush is needed to people who say but but but...

3) Do you honestly think that those in the pocket of the NRA would "allow" ANY gun reform?

4) Funny how countries like Australia and the UK don't have to argue about this crap. Apparently, we as a nation cannot play nice with guns, but of course, we must take it slow because there is probably no real way to solve the problem.

5) Get a few of your family members shot up when they are solving a trig problem, and then we can talk about hyperbole.

[Baconator]

81. I'll frame it like this then...

Hows it worked for you so far?

[LuckyCharms]

83. Worse than it will work with the

upcoming groundswell of support for gun regulation.

[Motownman78]

15. You know this question can apply to abortion as well.

The arguments between gun rights and abortion rights are similar. Both Pro sides do not want anymore regulations and bring out the "Slippery Slope" argument quite often.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

64. Except that if a woman has an abortion, it doesn't result in the deaths

of dozens of others. On the other hand, someone brings an arsenal into a high floor of a hotel in Las Vegas and in ten minutes 58 people are dead and 851 others injured.

So no, gun rights are not remotely similar to a woman's right to control her own (one) body.

[Motownman78]

75. That is true, but a lot of

people see the 1.5 million abortions each year as the murder of 1.5 potential humans.

[stonecutter357]

80. but a lot of people are dumd as fuck see trump ./..

[Major Nikon]

101. By that logic, jerking off wipes out entire potential civilizations

Every sperm is sacred

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

231. Those people are ignorant meddlers in other people's lives.

Not to mention those people are never willing to pay the kind of taxes that would result in good medical care, starting with pre-natal care, good schools for everyone, and so on. Nope. They are very invested in forced child-bearing, but we're all on our own once we depart the womb.

[AncientGeezer]

236. You don't see the irony in this..

"231. Those people are ignorant meddlers in other people's lives."
I pay a crap load of taxes every yr and have NEVER advocated for "forced child-bearing"....I don't know anyone that does

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

240. Those who put restrictions on abortion

are pushing forced childbearing.

There are those who think no abortion should be legal, no matter what the reason. That is forced childbearing.

I'm not suggesting you believe that, or anyone else here on DU does. But if you haven't noticed the continued erosion of abortion access you haven't been paying attention. Clinics being closed. Being required to basically be a hospital. The abortion provider being required to affiliate with a local hospital, except that not a single local hospital will accept the request for affiliation.

So yeah, anyone who presumes they know better than the woman involved is an ignorant meddler in her life.

[mythology]

18. Actually the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" doesn't appear in the Constitution

That's in the Declaration of Independence. Two different documents written at very different stages.

The gun defenders would say that a gun is in effect required to defend one's life either from threat of other citizens or the government. I don't find that argument persuasive with regards to some weapons but am more sympathetic to the argument for hand guns for self-defense. But an AR-15, not going to be a viable defense if the military decides to invade, no matter how many times somebody watches Red Dawn.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

86. Red Dawn got only marginal reviews as a movie.

Likeable characters but light on the plot. Try "watching" what you can find about 1980s Afghanistan. (Wow, I spelled it right on the first try!)

[brooklynite]

22. I'm not a gun nut, and you're not looking for an actual answer, but I'll give you one...

First, you actually have no legal "right to life"; that's enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, which unfortunately DOES enshrine the "right to bear arms".

Second, as a comparative matter, having a gun does not violate your right to life if it's not used improperly. You could make the same argument about why someone has the right to buy a car, since it could be used to run you down.

Personally, I have no desire to own or use a gun, but the notion that "nobody deserved to have one" will never be the dominant position in this Country.

[brush]

45. You're ignoring the "well regulated militia" part of the right to bear arms.

[brooklynite]

53. ...which the Supreme Court has already dismissed.

[brush]

61. Dismissed how? Now SCOTUS is dismissing part of the Constitution?

[brooklynite]

68. 2008: DC vs. Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[brush]

70. Where's the automatic or semi-auto converted to auto part of that decision?

[brooklynite]

77. Not the issue in the case, and not the original question...

Legally, the Congress CAN ban specific models of firearms. It chooses not to.

[brush]

78. Smack of Scaliaism to me. Don't you agree?

[hack89]

205. America drew that line in 1934 with the National Firearms Act (NFA)

which is why automatic weapons are very hard to buy.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

67. How about the way so many who defend the 2nd Amendment

claim to be sincere Christians? I seem to recall that not killing is one of -- how many? 3? 7? oh, yeah 10 -- Commandments which are supposed to be even more important than the Constitution.

[boston bean]

96. When a person is shot dead all their rights have been stripped.

[brooklynite]

98. So, because you could hit the person with a car, those should be banned as well?

Be clear, I'm not advocating for guns, I'm challenging simplistic arguments against them.

[boston bean]

103. Just stop it. A car is not a machine manufactured for the purpose of killing humans.

[quartz007]

113. Trucks are now weapon of choice by terrorists

based on recent events in Europe and NY.

[boston bean]

114. Does Mack truck make special models to better run over people with?

[sheshe2]

130. +++++

[X_Digger]

115. Were it true, it would still have fuck-all to do with the point being discussed. Nice dodge though.

7/10, with a +1 for style.

[sarisataka]

30. It doesn't

But you know that

[2left4u]

33. Not a nut

Like all the other rights that protect our Republic it provides the final check and balance to the individual.
It ultimately allows the individual or group the ability to protect themselves from nefarious people or groups who want to take the very rights you posted.

It does not say we need to own military hardware.

[MichMary]

39. Doncha know?

The only things that should be in the Constitution are the things WE like?

[LuckyCharms]

40. Are you writing the victim's families yet?

To tell them about their fascism and hyperbole? Better get a move on.

[MichMary]

42. Yeah, well,

right after I vaporize the herd of hogs in my backyard.

[LuckyCharms]

43. You seem to be evading my question.

[MichMary]

47. Not evading anything

If you don't think there has been a whiff of fascism exhibited here, then I can't help you. I really hope people who think that certain organizations should be illegal, regardless of the fact that they are not engaged in illegal activity, and that the right to association is protected by our founding documents, are never in charge. There was once a country that put law-abiding citizens on lists, marked them, then shipped them off to concentration camps. That was allowed to happen by people who figured nothing like that would ever happen to them. Does that sound familiar to you??

[LuckyCharms]

49. Oh I see!

The old "look what happened when Hitler took away guns". I've seen that before, but I'm not sure where. Hmmm...facebook maybe...I don't know.

[AncientGeezer]

108. Would you accept President Obama's view on the 2a?

"Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start — and I’ve said this over and over again, this also becomes routine, there is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do — I believe in the Second Amendment. It’s there written on the paper. It GUARANTEES A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around "

[LuckyCharms]

141. No. n/t

[bettyellen]

194. LOL. Common sense regulation and closing the loopholes are fair. Unless you want to arm felons and

maniacs then your “list” analogy is complete bullshit. I suspect you know that. People see through this rhetoric.

[MichMary]

195. Wrong

I'm talking about people who would designate the NRA a terrorist organization. People who think law-abiding gun owners are terrorists. The posts are here. They sound crazy, because they are crazy.

You know nothing like that is going to go anywhere, so we should be focusing on electing any candidate who supports common sense, realistic gun laws. Not some loony, wild-eyed pie-in-the-sky pipe dram.

[bettyellen]

196. The NRA is pushing to arm the masses with less regulation than ever. They support

maniacs, terrorists and gun manufacturers- not the citizens. People are fed up with their bullshit tactics to increase availability of arms to dangerous people. That’s literally what they are doing and people finally see that.

[AncientGeezer]

226. You can source that I'm sure..."They support maniacs, terrorists and gun manufacturers

[bettyellen]

229. They literally want it easier for the mentally ill to get guns, harder for the govt to backround

check and register w any real ability to screen out the violent. You know this. We know it too.

[AncientGeezer]

232. "...easier for the mentally ill to get guns"...a widely spread falsehood.

My wife.. a Vet that collected Social Security... couldn't balance her check book with a triple beam, just refused to do it ...but drilled into her kids firearms safety.
President Obama's EO would have made it illegal for her to buy a firearm because I did her books.
ACLU, Americans with Disabilities opposed that EO for the stigma and civil rights imposition it hit people like my wife with.

Do you have a REAL source?

[bettyellen]

235. Sorry if you hate all restrictions- but youre provng my point. Some people should not have guns.

You’re all against that becasue you’re afraid it would be you. But of course if there was a homicidal asshole down the street carrying you’d wonder why nothing was done about it. That’s becasue of you, and people like you who feel there should be no restrictions or requirements. I’m glad you’re a minority in this.

[AncientGeezer]

237. "...wonder why nothing was done about it. "...No, that's on that a'hole. Doesn't bother me.

Won't be long in my yard...
You can't show me EVER saying or suggesting.."..there should be no restrictions or requirements."
Please try. I live in NY where we have restrictions and requirement with the S.A.F.E. Act 2nd only to California I believe. I'm not bitching about them...
And you can't back your claim..."They literally want it easier for the mentally ill to get guns,.."

[brush]

48. And it does say the right to bear arms should be in a well regulated militia, not in the...

hands of a mentally disturbed teen who killed 17 in Florida or the 40-something kook in Las Vegas who killed 58.

Within the confines of a "well regulated militia" seems to somehow get left out of all the gun humpers' arguments.

[AncientGeezer]

87. No it really says no such thing...

Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

President Obama acknowledged an individuals right to own firearms
"Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start — and I’ve said this over and over again, this also becomes routine, there is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do — I believe in the Second Amendment. It’s there written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around — I taught constitutional law, I know a little about this — "

[brush]

92. So you're saying that the intent of the founding fathers was not bearing arms in the confines...

of a well regulated militia—the state-of-the-art, single-shot muskets of the day?

And btw, do ya think they would've approved of mentally disturbed teens or 40-something killers being able to bear hundreds-of-rounds-per-minute automatic or semi-automatic arms converted to automatic weapons?

Do you really think that, or do you, no matter how begrudgingly, think that the 2nd Amendment desperately needs amending itself?

[AncientGeezer]

102. "...of a well regulated militia" ..I'm saying EXACTLY that...

Like muskets..they knew tech would evolve.

No I do NOT believe they would have approved of a deranged dumbass have access to an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons haven't been used in a murder in...what...80+yrs...though ownership is still legal.
You can legally own a TANK a functional tank with the right paperwork.

Again...the following has NOT occurred...."..semi-automatic arms converted to automatic weapons" ...and you can't source it having been and used in a shooting in the past 50yrs

[brush]

105. What do you think the Las Vegas killer used? And why avoid the question of amending the 2nd?

[AncientGeezer]

116. He used a bump stock....DID NOT make his semi auto into an automatic.

It's why he was horribly poor in accomplishing what he wanted to do.
With all the shots he fired.. his accuracy SUCKED thank God.

I have NOT avoided answering about amending the 2nd...I've answered several times. Won't happen...and shouldn't.
Don't frig up the BoR's..1st it's the 2nd, then the 1st, then the 5th...NO.

[brush]

123. You're woefully uninformed. The bump stock is what converted his AR-15s to automatic.

And do ya really think that killer was trying for accuracy when he was spraying that huge crowd of concert goers with fire?

Just one more think. The Vegas shooter killed 58 and injured hundreds. So much for trying for accuracy.

You lost me with that claim.

We're done.

[AncientGeezer]

134. Bump stock does NOT convert a semi into an automatic. It's uninformed to say so.

You can NOT find ONE source to back that claim.
I dare you to try to show ANY source....ask people here if a bump stock turns a semi auto into an automatic.

Maybe you don't know what an automatic is...that's a possibility.
A much better possibility than you saying it turns a semi into an automatic.
That's uninformed. Us being done...that's the best move you've done so far because you have NO clue what a bump stock does .

[brush]

135. Here you go. Now tell me that isn't automatic. Uninformed yet again.

[AncientGeezer]

136. You didn't read the discription of your YouTube vid did you?

I'll quote it for you...."Fucking awesome clip of a factory rep putting 300 rounds through a new M-4 type carbine. On full auto."
You fell for the AR-15 on auto video tag didn't you....AR's are not now nor have they been Autos.
That rifle in the video is an M-4 variant NOT an AR-15.
NOTHING to do with a bump stock...try again?

[brush]

144. Bump stocks convert them to automatic. If you claim it's something else then you've...

been on YouTube and have no doubt found other videos of AR-15s converted to automatic fire.

Stop with the denial. It doesn't become you or convince anyone of your nonsensical argument.

These videos are not new. They've been around for years.

Why do you think those guns are so popular?

It's because they can be converted with a cheap bump stock device.

I live in Las Vegas. The police here were all over the papers and TV with the evidence of multiple AR-15s and bump stocks left behind by that crazed killler.

[Straw Man]

153. Not technically, no.

Only an auto-sear truly converts them to automatic. And that's either illegal or super-expensive, like five figures expensive. Bump stocks just make it easier to pull the trigger really fast, by harnessing the motion of the gun under recoil to do most of the pulling.

AR-15s are popular because they are durable, ergonomic, accurate, efficient, and affordable. I know a few dozen people who own ARs, and not one of them has a bump stock device.

You like video evidence, so try this one:

I'll summarize it for you:
• semi-auto = 5 rounds per second
• bump stock = 7.5 rounds per second
• full-auto = 15 rounds per second.

[brush]

154. Oh please. You think the relatives of the dead are arguing that they're dead but technically...

the greatly increased rate of fire from the AR-15s wasn't really automatic?

Spare us.

[Straw Man]

155. Greatly increased?

Bump stocks give a 50% increase in firing rate. Full-auto gives a 200% increase. And here you are trying to pretend they're the same thing.

Tragedy is tragedy, and grief is grief. Misinformation is misinformation, and you don't get to hide it behind somebody else's grief and tragedy. You do those people no service by posting falsehoods.

Spare us indeed.

[brush]

157. You're arguing whether it's 50% v 200% increase rate of fire?

Big effin deal. The dead are still dead because maniacs were able to get access to the weapon and the device that increased the rate of fire.

And it's highly doubtful from watching those videos that that's only a 50% increase.

[Straw Man]

158. Yes. Perhaps you didn't understand me.

You don't get to claim tragedy as a shield for spreading falsehoods. If rate of fire matters, than faster rate of fire matters more. Bump stocks are not even close to full-auto rates of fire, but you've been claiming that they are. That's false, and now you're doubling down on falsehood, using somebody else's grief as your justification.

And it's highly doubtful from watching those videos that that's only a 50% increase.

They timed how long it took to empty a thirty-round mag. Time it yourself. Got a stopwatch? Let us know what you find.

[brush]

159. How do you measure full auto. How many rounds per minute is that?

Technically this isn't automatic fire. But what's a small technicality to the dead?

OK, maybe it's not "technically" automatic fire but your argument sure makes a lot of sense after watching that.

[Straw Man]

160. Full-auto is achieved by an automatic sear.

It doesn't require a pull of the trigger to fire each round. Just hold the trigger back and it will continue to fire until you release it.

The video I posted, which you are steadfastly ignoring, shows a comparison of AR .223 rifles fired in three modes: semi-auto, bump stock, and full auto.

Now you post a video that shows an AR in 9mm, which is a much lower-power and lower-recoiling round -- actually a handgun round. He is NOT using a bump stock -- in fact, he has no stock at all on the rifle. What you see is the buffer tube, which would be contained in the stock if the stock was there. He is using the sling to counterbalance the forward pressure of his hand on the forend of the rifle. This is how bump-firing was done before bump-stocks were developed. It's a tricky technique, and one that he has obviously practiced quite a bit. I doubt that he would be able to do it with the .223 -- too much recoil for him to be able to control it like that.

The point is that, as I said, he is not using a bump stock. Before bump stocks ever existed, people developed this technique using slings, shoelaces, even a thumb hooked in one's belt loop. So ... shall we outlaw slings, shoelaces, and belt loops?

Once more, you miss the boat. Not a bump stock, and not a .223 rifle. Any luck with timing the courses of fire on that other video?

[brush]

163. You're missing the boat. The video doesn't show what you call technically automatic fire...

but the greatly increased rate of fire allows an AR-15 with a bump stock to mow down people as quickly as some full automatic weapons.

Gotcha!

But "technically" it's not really an automatic weapon.

I got that too for what it's worth.

[Straw Man]

165. No bump stock in that video. I've already explained that.

You can't seem to find a video that supports your contention. Keep looking.

If you want to prevent what you saw in that video, you'd have to outlaw slings, shoelaces, and belt loops

How about the timing on that other video? How did that come out?

[brush]

167. Give it a rest, man. Technicality or not the real point is barring access to such weapons...

from crazies.

[Straw Man]

168. And if you could define "such weapons" ...

... and "crazies," you might be on your way somewhere. As it is, you're going around in circles with bad information and irrelevant videos.

[brush]

170. No thanks. Not worth it.

[Straw Man]

172. So you want to advocate for laws ...

... but you can't articulate what those laws should be. Got it.

[brush]

169. So bump firing with that stock is not tecnically using a bump stock?

Are you for real?

[Straw Man]

171. There is NO STOCK on that weapon.

It's the buffer tube. In fact, he introduces the weapon in the video as his "Rock River Arms 9mm AR-15 pistol." Pistol, as in "no stock." The buffer tube is part of the action, and on an AR-15 rifle, it is contained within the stock. That gun has NO STOCK; no bump stock, no stock, period. A bump stock is a spring-loaded device designed to assist bump firing. He's not using one. That tube is rigid. It's a non-modified AR pistol.

Yes, I'm for real. You're not. You're posting videos, and you don't even know what they're showing. The conclusions you're drawing are therefore meaningless.

[brush]

161. You're actually arguing that this is only a 50% increase in the rate of fire?

Yeah, right.

[Straw Man]

162. Moving the goalposts again?

We were talking about bump stocks, remember? He doesn't have a bump stock on that rifle -- in fact, he has no stock at all. He's bump-firing using the sling -- an older technique, and not easy to master. And it's a 9mm variant of an AR, not a .223. See this post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10291392

[brush]

164. He says right in the video that it's call bump firing.

[Straw Man]

166. Right. And it can be done without a bump stock.

I already explained that. Didn't you read my whole post?

REPEAT: There is no bump stock in that video.

[yagotme]

119. Per current law and ATF doctrine,

he used semi-auto rifles with an attached bump stock to increase the rate of fire above an unaltered semi auto. A pull of the trigger was required to fire each round, the stock just allowing a faster pull rate.

[brush]

127. Videos on YouTube are easily accessed showing converted AR-15s firing automatically.

They're as easily accessible in fact, as are AR-15s and bump stocks are to people who shouldn't have them because of our lax gun laws.

Do your research.

No, I'll do it for you.

[AncientGeezer]

138. Poor research....that's an M-4 variant NOT an AR

In the video description....which you should have read...."Fucking awesome clip of a factory rep putting 300 rounds through a new M-4 type carbine. On full auto."

[brush]

143. It says rignt on the video that it's an AR-15. Nice try though.

[Straw Man]

147. And it also says this.

This video is NOT represent a firearm that is available for sale to the general public. It is solely available to the military and law enforcement communities.

In other words, NOT AN AR-15, despite what the YouTube title says.

Don't believe everything you see on YouTube.

[brush]

148. Stop the bs denials. I live in Vegas. The killer left behind multipe AR-15s and bump stocks...

that he killed 58 people with.

Police were all over the papers and TV for months here talking about how the killer had several AR-15s because the barrels heated up after a while from the rapid fire so he had to switch to another one to keep firing and killing.

You are so obviously wrong.

Are you sure you're ok?

Hope you don't own one.

[Straw Man]

151. And the video you posted shows neither an AR-15 nor a bump stock.

It has nothing to do with what the Vegas shooter used. Just so you know.

[AncientGeezer]

173. They do it all the time on the thumbnails...for hits.

read the Actual description of the video

[yagotme]

181. I thought research meant

looking for COMPLETE information on a subject matter. Obviously, on the above replies to your post, you failed in this matter.

[brush]

185. What's this then?

Last edited Tue Feb 27, 2018, 11:01 AM - Edit history (1)

[AncientGeezer]

200. A fully auto M-4 varianat. Noveske Rifleworks N-4 10.5" CQB(not AR-15)

The info is in the video.
If you read 1 of the "ballons" in the vid it Clearly says .....
"It is SOLELY available to the MILITARY and LAW enforcement communities"

[brush]

201. Try this

[brush]

209. The point is variants are available to civilians. Are you in agreement that those variants...

and bump stocks which enable them to have a near-auto rate of fire should be banned to help end the mass shootings in the country?

[AncientGeezer]

215. NO they are NOT.."209. The point is variants are available to civilians.

[brush]

216. My question is do you agree that the variants and devices that make them near-auto should be...

banned for civilian use to help curtail the mass shootings?

It's a straight forward question. Give us a straight forward answer.

And how about limiting magazine capacity if you don't agree with a ban on the weapons?

Come on, get serious with contributing something positive tp solving the mass shootings problem instead of just saying this or that video does not show an AR-15 or a bump stock.

[AncientGeezer]

219. Your premise is wrong...your vids are NOT AR's or variants. I told you that a couple days ago.

You posted an M4 variant and a 9mm clone AR pistol....NEITHER of which have EVER been used in a school shooting or in the Vegas concert slaughter.
You claim to be from Vegas...show ANY Vegas LEO report the that a'holes bump stocks made his rifles Automatic...

No I do not support what YOU propose...because YOU don't know the difference between an AR , a Fully auto M4, or a 9mm pistol...

[brush]

228. Go to the "Las Vegas Journal Review's" web site. You'll find all the stories they did on the bump...

stocks the Vegas killer used. That's not even in dispute.

What is is how to stop the mass killings, not if I know the difference between one weapon or another.

If you have positive suggestions, list them.

[AncientGeezer]

234. No...but I'll bet my cats treat budget for a yr...none of them say

that the f'ck waddles rifles were automatic...bump stock or not.
Incumbent on you to back your earlier claim.

[brush]

238. Go back to your right wing sites. You're no help.

[AncientGeezer]

242. Are you helpful posting videos that do NOT in any way support your claims?

Posting crap that is the OPPOSITE of what you say...you don't read the words posted in the vids let alone the descriptions...you did it twice in this Topic.

Your posts will harden the opposition...and because I call you out for not knowing what your talking about...you play.."go to your right wing sites." That's hoytish

You being poorly informed is NOT my fault.
2-3 ppl tried to inform you... besides me.

[yagotme]

206. If you notice, there is no bump stock on that "pistol".

There is no stock at all, technically. What you see out the back of the weapon is the buffer tube, which houses the bolt buffer and recoil spring. That is actually a rifle length, I believe, and he is using the extra length to use his shoulder as a "bounce" multiplier. He is extending and holding his index finger in place, and allowing the weapon to recoil back and forth to actuate the trigger. It is NOT full auto fire, per the BATFE. No attachment, no modification. One could do this with an M-1 Garand, if one so dared.

[brush]

208. Fine. The point is these near-auto capable weapons should not be available to civilians like...

the Florida school killer or the Las Vegas concert killer.

Agreed?

[yagotme]

210. No.

Not if what you are pushing for is an all out ban of every semi auto weapon in the US. And reading some of your other posts, that seems to be the case. ANY semi auto rifle can be bump fired, if the shooter has the upper body strength and the will to do so. I had a 1911A1 pistol that I tried to shoot bullseye (one handed) matches with, had a very light trigger. It would occasionally "double" on me, as the recoil would move the pistol in my hand just enough distance to reset the trigger, and when the recoil forces passed, the trigger would be pulled again. Basically, "bump firing". I got rid of it, as I wanted it primarily for bullseye. Hard to be competitive when you have a 10 and a 6 on your first two shots.

[brush]

211. So nothing should be done to curtail the mass shootings? We continue to let mentally-disturbed...

individuals kill in schools, business and concerts?

Since Australia's very effective gun law in the '90s after a mass shooting, they've had only one domestic violence shooting of 4 people.

That solution worked.

Give us your solution if you don't want to go the Australia route.

Clearly something needs to be done.

Agreed?

[yagotme]

212. Well, the last shooting,

could have been stopped at several points by the Sheriff's office, or the FBI. They didn't do their jobs. I believe they should have, and face the consequences of that decision. Now, do you want the same people that went belly up on this incident be the same ones that enforce gun control???

[brush]

213. I want effective measures taken. What about the Australia model, or limiting the size of magazines?

Pls no rehashes of what human errors were made.

Give us something concrete that works.

[AncientGeezer]

217. We are NEVER going to have your "Australia model" ..confiscation.

That would start a fight you, the Govt can't win.
You don't know an AR from an M4 from a bump stock to a pistol and we have tried to tell you the differences for days....

Mag sizes are a real possibility of something that can be done for new purchase.
Problem is....there's probably 30 mil Mags out there and if you ban them, the value of them will explode...immediate black market.

[brush]

218. Finally something positive. So you're on board with limiting magazine capacity with new purchases?

See, not that hard if we work together to get to a viable solution.

Now what about a suggestion to winnow down the number of large capacity magazines out there —maybe a buy back amnesty, or maybe a tax write-off for turning them in?

Pls no snark about whether I now the difference between this weapon or not, just workable solutions as I'm sure you agree something needs to be done to help stop the mass shootings.

[AncientGeezer]

220. NOBODY that owns a 30rd mag will turn them in...as I said above...

Explosive black market, I live in NY...after the SAFE act..nobody turned in even 10 rd ARmags.
You will triple, hell, quadruple the value. A guy in a tin shop can make them...

[brush]

221. Something postive pls. Why automatically go to nothing can be done?

[AncientGeezer]

223. I support the BoR's, ALL of them....I don't see your poorly informed wishes as a positive

Lot's can be done to stop this crap but none of it has to infringe on law abiding people.
You said you want Australian type remedies...that's just not going to happen.

[brush]

227. Give suggestions not insults. No one's trying to infringe on rights, just looking for positive...

ways to stop the mass killings.

You say lots can be done so what do you think will help?

[AncientGeezer]

239. You most certainly are trying to infringe on rights...and using

Vids that have ZERO to do with your argument, not at all relavant to your claims...and refuse to accept that you are wrong. You haven't shown an AR YET..let alone a bump stock...and I HATE bump stocks...they are a horrible waste of ammo.
I don't recall an insult.
If you can show 1, I'll apologize for it immediately....I will NOT apologize for showing you wrong.

[brush]

241. Boring. Go back to your right wing sites. You're no help.

[yagotme]

244. HUMAN ERRORS WERE MADE!!!!

Passing what gun law is going to correct that problem? If the system had been properly utilized, HE WOULD MOST LIKELY HAVE BEEN ON THE NO-BUY LIST. Why are you trying to make my life miserable, when I have broken no laws, to pass and enforce something that would have had ZERO effect on this incident. And please, enough of the "Legal gun owner, until you're not." rehash.

[brush]

245. Pls go back to your winger site.

[yagotme]

246. Hope you're not making personal attacks, now...

That might be against SOP. Making your arguments null and void.

[AncientGeezer]

224. Yep...as could have been the Texas Church slaughter...

Failure to report to NICS....what brush will ignore is an AR owner stopped the scumbag

[brooklynite]

54. Out of curiosity, how does your right to a gun accomplish that?

[we can do it]

35. I wanted to post this but could not figure out how to say so simply.

[Baconator]

51. Just because the Declaration of Independence was written first...

Doesn't mean it supersedes the Constitution...

Can you imagine if this were an actual law though? Those gay guys over there? They're impeding my happiness...

Protesters... Happiness and Liberty (I can't get where I want because they're standing on my favorite corner)

Red meat? Right to life and Happiness..

It's ridiculous and completely legally unenforcable.

[Amaryllis]

117. Didnt you know they have an alternative Constitution? It's like alternative facts.

[IronLionZion]

120. Why mass shootings don't convince gun owners to support gun control

https://www.vox.com/2015/12/4/9845146/mass-shootings-gun-control?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=entry&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

They've been burrowing deep into their beliefs and no amount of dead children is going to change their minds.

"Guns have become a last-ditch effort to impose control on a world slipping away."

[lastlib]

121. becuz Benghazi.......

her e-mails

An' abortion........

[Lee-Lee]

128. Because they are not mutually exclusive

Do you ask anyone who like a beer now and then why their right to get drunk overrides your right to not die in an accident?

Of course you don’t, because you are able to see that just because a minority of people abuse a product of freedom doesn’t mean everyone who ever engages in it is a threat to your life.

[Baconator]

150. This is it...

People don't feel collective responsibility for the actions of others.

I think it was the 538 podcast the other day... Talking about how folks are for certain gun control measures in principle but support drops off the cliff when it affects their ability to have access.

[Azathoth]

152. Simple. Your rights do not extend to depriving others of their rights.

You're using the exact same argument that Southerners used to defend Jim Crow. "Forced integration violates our right to free association!!!" You don't get to preemptively deprive an entire class of people of their rights on the theory that you are making it impossible for any of them to violate your rights in the future.

Yes, gun murderers deprive people of their right to life -- and the murderers who survive to be captured go to jail and/or the lethal injection table for their actions.

[liberal N proud]

190. But yet we have so many deprived of their right to live at the hand of a gun.

[pressbox69]

199. It's because

the NRA right to lock, load and murder eclipses your right of the pursuit of happiness. Is that clear now?

[Kingofalldems]

207. Great post. I knew they would come.

[DFW]

214. To several million gun nuts

The pursuit of happiness only ends in success when they HAVE a gun, and bliss means they have acquired a large number of them.

YOUR life means nothing to them (unless you haven't been born yet). THEY see themselves as not having lived until they acquire their first gun.

It's not the easiest mindset to wrap one's self around, but it must be done to understand them.

[Initech]

222. It says so in the Gun Nut Bible, don't you know?

Specifically in the book of Harry chapter 2 verse 1 - " I knoweth what thou art thinking - dost thou prayeth six times or only 5".

[Mr. Ected]

233. Because 2 is greater than 1

Probably the only math or constitutional knowledge most of these troglodytes understand.