Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[TeddyR]

1. Agreed

We need to get guns out of the hands of felons and make sure that those who possess guns illegally are prosecuted and sent to prison. We also need to have stiffer penalties for those who use a gun to commit a crime. The vast majority of shootings are committed by those who already have a criminal record.

[TeddyR]

6. I guess I have a couple of thoughts in response

Semiautomatic rifles like the AK-47 Dear had are very rarely used in crimes. I don't have the numbers at hand but my recollection is that knives are used in many more murders that semiautomatic rifles. Furthermore, the weapon Dear used was not an automatic weapon like the terrorists used in France a few weeks ago or like the rifles used by militaries. Instead, it fires at the same rate (semi-auto) as any of the millions of handguns available for purchase at your local gun store. So it isn't "designed for war" any more than the handguns readily available for purchase in just about any location in the US. In fact, while you can purchase handguns identical or very similar to those used by the militaries and police forces of various countries, you generally cannot purchase automatic weapons (subject to some really expensive/time-consuming exceptions) at all.

[Waldorf]

9. It's not a weapon of war. Those would be fully automatic Ak's. The ones that can be purchased in

stores are semi-auto only.

[Waldorf]

15. Yes, it can fire a lot of bullets, just like my semi-automatic .22. But it still is not a weapon of

war because it lacks the ability of automatic fire.

[Duckhunter935]

37. As almost every firearm ever made

My bolt action rifles are actually military specification. Hunting rifles are also derivatives of weapons designed for war. Some armies use civilian rifles. So what would you limit for rifles and how would you accomplish it. I await your answer, but do not expect any reply.

[hack89]

44. What rifle was not designed for war?

bolt action rifles killed tens of millions in WWI and WWII.

[Duckhunter935]

48. Hell, muzzleloaders were designed for war.

[Hoyt]

30. Tell that to victims of mass shootings. Besides, plenty of gunners have converted them, or howabout

this:

[TheSarcastinator]

66. what disingenuous nonsense

You're not fooling anyone.

[Waldorf]

67. Not nonsense at all. The foolish are the ones who think the two (AK semi-auto available in the US vs

the fully automatic that is used in conflicts) are the same thing.

[Hoyt]

3. We need to restrict access to guns, period. Until we figure out a way to identify

the Zimmermans, Dunns, Curtis Reeves, Cliven Bundy Militia members, PP shooter, intimidators, etc., before they kill or whip up hatred, restricted access to guns and limiting the number and types of weapons, makes a heck of a lot of sense. Ask the Australians, who finally bit the bullet in 1996 by telling gun fanciers their sick attraction is over.

[Hoyt]

10. I'm fine with a gun or two AT HOME for hunting and home defense (not that I believe it is really

needed, but don't want to send gunners into shock). But acquiring unlimited and all kinds of gunz, tons of ammo, etc., is just polluting society with stuff that will be around for 100 or more years killing people.

[Waldorf]

16. Whats the difference between owning 1 or 50? I can still only shoot one at a time.

[Hoyt]

19. Simple, those 50 guns will be sold, given to others, stolen -- perhaps more importantly, they fuel

a sickness that results in a lot of gun intimidation, killing, etc. When some yahoo has a gun for every possible "situation" they imagine, the guns are clearly an indication/symptom of sickness. People purchasing that many gunz, fuels the lethal weapon industry.

I'll turn your gunner argument around -- we know guns are bad, why the hell do we allow some yahoo to acquire as many as he wants.

I'll take things a step further. If we had gun registration, we'd know the sickos with 50 gunz and they ought to be prohibited from owning any. They are polluters of society, nothing less.

How many do you have? The admitted record in the gungeon is 4 gun safes packed full.

[Waldorf]

24. I don't consider the guns bad, more the people. A gun is just an inanimate object. I strongly

believe people who use a firearm during the commission of a crime should spend some hefty time in jail.

As far as how many do I have? More than 1 but less than 50. When there are different actions for each type of firearm, and then different calibers within those actions, it is easy to acquire a collection over a lifetime.

[Hoyt]

25. Gotta have all those "actions" to be happy, notwithstanding gunz effect on society.

[Waldorf]

26. Yes, all those different "actions" do make me happy. I enjoy shooting for a hobby. And when

I come back from the range they are store in a big gun safe.

I had wine on Thanksgiving, should I feel bad because of alcohol's very negative effect on society?

[Hoyt]

29. Wine is not the same as lethal weapons. Heck, I prefer a wino over a gun loving militia type anyday.

[Duckhunter935]

38. Alcohol like wine just kills

And causes much more harm than all rifles do.

[Hoyt]

39. That's no reason to accept yahoos hooked on gunz. You gunners are amazing.

[Duckhunter935]

42. I just wish you would be so vocal over alcohol

I guess those deaths do not matter in your would, sad.

[Hoyt]

43. Alcohol is a problem. Gunz are a bigger problem -- intimidation, crime, mass shootings, empowering

racists, militias, etc. Again, I'll take a wino to a gun nut any day.

To me cancer is the worst disease, but I'm not going to quit supporting proper treatment for diabetes, mental illness, etc.

[hack89]

46. Wine kills many more people than assault weapons. nt

[951-Riverside]

5. I support repealing the 2nd amendment instead of working around it

Felons are going to get a hold of guns, the mentally ill are going to get a hold of guns, terrorists are going to get a hold of guns.

Why?

Because they are readily available, California banned magazines that hold more than 10 rounds but nothing stops me from going one state over and obtaining large capacity mags which is why I support a constitutional convention to repeal or alter the 2nd amendment and I think we will have the votes to get this done in the very near future (within 10-15 years),

[SickOfTheOnePct]

7. Unless I live to be 200 years old

I don't expect to see this happen in my lifetime. The shift that would be necessary in order to get 34 states to agree to repeal the 2nd Amendment is insurmountable, in my opinion.

[Hoyt]

12. I get what you are saying, but every decade we do nothing, puts 100 million more gunz on the street

that we will have to deal with down the road.

Agree, gun laws aren't going to do as much in the short-run, but long-term it will be harder to find guns on the black market. Plus, there are a lot of gunners who are not going to go underground to buy more gunz if gunz were heavily restricted and penalties for acquiring guns were tough. Less gunz, less gunz to steal too.

[Waldorf]

13. I don't see this happening for a long long time. They might get enough for Congress but I don't

see 3/4 of the States ratifying it. The Equal Rights Amendment was introduced in 1972 and it finally died in 1982 because not enough States ratified it.

Even Californians ignore some of their ridiculous gun laws. Los Angeles city council recently passed a resolution banning all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (even the ones that the legislature grandfathered in). The citizens had 60 days to get rid of them or turn them into the police. Guess how many the police received? 0.

[etherealtruth]

17. The second amendment was not always interpreted the way it is today

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.


Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

[hack89]

27. The 2A allows strict gun control. It is not the problem. nt

[etherealtruth]

28. That was indeed, my point .... and the point of the article!

[hack89]

41. But it will be regulated within the context of an individual right

I don't see that changing.

[etherealtruth]

47. Maybe, maybe not

And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weapons—like tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”


So the government cannot ban handguns, but it can ban other weapons—like, say, an assault rifle—or so it appears. The full meaning of the court’s Heller opinion is still up for grabs. But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressure—as they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years. And if legislators, responding to their constituents, sense a mandate for new restrictions on guns, the courts will find a way to uphold them. The battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, eve

r is.

[hack89]

49. The 2A has never been the real issue. It is the lack of broad passionate public support

people care but not that much - it has never been a high priority with voters.

[etherealtruth]

54. There is a sea change coming

I have always hated "guns" .... I am not talking about hunting (I hate hunting on a personal level , but as a meat eater I can hardly criticize this practice which is much more humane than the way much of our meat products are produced) .... I have become much more vocal and aware in my voting and have noted it coming to the forefront in the progressive community.

[hack89]

55. As a gun owner I have been hearing that for a very long time.

so please excuse my skepticism.

If there was going to be a sea change it would have happened 25 years ago before we cut our gun murder rate in half.

[etherealtruth]

57. I hold out hope for our society .... we can't just sit back and say "there's nothing we can do" n/t

[hack89]

61. There is a lot we can do

Stronger background checks, making suicide prevention a national priority, keeping guns away dangerous people, cracking down on illegal gun trafficking, cracking down on the use of guns to commit crimes.

[hack89]

20. The 2A does not stop strict gun control

AWBs, registration, UBCs, magazine limits, training and storage requirements are all perfectly constitutional.

[951-Riverside]

22. but the 2A does allow firearms to be sold in the first place

Get rid of the 2nd amendment and you can get rid of private ownership of firearms.

Private ownership is the problem here. John Q Public should not be able to have a weapon of war sitting in a drawer next to his bed.

[hack89]

23. There is the issue of state constitutions

Most of which contain a state equivalent of the 2A. They won't just disappear.

But the bigger issue is that if the American people don't support strict gun laws now, how the hell to you expect them to take a massive leap and ban private ownership? Yours is a radically fringe idea - even the Democratic party platform says the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

[Snobblevitch]

35. When has there never been private ownership

of firearms in the U.S.?

[Waldorf]

63. This is why new gun laws at the national level fail. When people see wanting to repeal the

2nd Amendment and confiscate their firearms, they are extremely wary of any new laws. In Los Angeles, the city council voted to ban all magazines greater than 10 rounds. No exceptions, not even the ones the legislature grandfathered in. The time to turn them in expired a couple weeks ago. Guess how many got turned into the police.

Zero.

[X_Digger]

31. Repealing the second would not remove the right. The bill of rights grants no rights.

The right would go from being explicitly protected to implicitly protected via the 9th amendment.

Geez, it's not just millennials that need to take a civics class, is it?

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. Gun regulation is a critical policy for me. Nt

I wi

[madokie]

14. Yes sir Mr. President

we have to do this.

[99th_Monkey]

21. Odd juxtaposition here:

Obama Signs Bill To Allow 100,000 Military Surplus 1911 .45 Cal Pistols Sold to Public
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/breaking-obama-signs-bill-that-will-allow-military-surplus-1911-45-cal-pistols-to-public/?utm_source=GSL

[virginia mountainman]

33. I know, I can't wait to get one of those EOM

[Waldorf]

64. Same for me. I'd like to add one of those to my collection.

[virginia mountainman]

32. The basis of this thread is incorrect.

They are not "weapons of war", if they where military's around the world would be using them, and they, I assure you, DO NOT.

Why would they use the neutered version, when they can use the real thing? Makes me feel bad that someone has clearly lied to the president, I would expect someone in his position to be much better informed on the issues at hand.

[virginia mountainman]

52. Not impressed by that video. Actully..

I see that you're very new around here, so let me clue you in a the biggest secret on this forum... Many of us Democrats are gun owners, and stand against "BS" gun control that is completely pointless, and would have no effect, championed by rich people with armed guards 24/7. I actually own a couple of what "YOU" would call AK-47's. But they are not, they are semi auto.

Secondly, if I had been working, I would have had MY own gun with me, I am a CCW holder in my state, and I carry my very discreetly hidden .45 pistol with me when I am at work. I would have at least had "options". Would you have had any options?

Also, another statement of fact, more Democratic seats have been lost in the efforts to "control guns" than just about any other issue, it is a proven electoral loser. At this point the Democratic party has almost be relegated to a party of "regional" power. We, politically have not been this weak for almost 100 years. Do you really think Gun Control will help us at the polls?

Here, watch this video, and learn something about this issue, about how Assault weapon bans and magazine capacity bans where silly, political "saftey theater" for the uniformed. Please don't be uniformed.

[krispos42]

36. We must immediately make them not weapons of war...

...by removing the protruding pistol grips, mandating wooden furniture, and making the guns shiny and reflective.

[Duckhunter935]

40. Yep that will fix it, lol

[hack89]

51. Solutions grounded in cultural, political and legal reality have a greater chance of becoming law.

until that fact sinks in, gun control will remain a smoking wreck in America.

[virginia mountainman]

56. Ok, how do you propose to do that..

If the people that have them DON"T WANT TO GIVE THEM UP?

And the people in their community, almost all feel the same way, including law enforcement???

You wanna "REALLY" see blood run in the streets?? Give those folks a try, if you can find someone to try it, which i seriously doubt it..

Would you go house to house demanding their guns??

Didn't think so.

[virginia mountainman]

60. SO? You still got to catch us...And the sheriff is family,

and he agrees with me..... Odds are any sheriff elected "around these parts" will feel the same, or he simply would NOT be elected.

You're not seeing the "disconnect" between the vast majority of the nation, and a "few areas" on this issue.

You do realize they passed the SAFE act in new york, they estimate 90+% non compliance with the new laws. And gun control is much easier to pass their than say, just about anywhere else.

[jwirr]

50. And there was a General who said that at the time of Sandy

Hook. American citizens have no need for weapons of war. Would both of the guns the shooter was using fall under that category?

[jwirr]

62. I agree totally with that general.

[HereSince1628]

53. Yep, which is why the new action will probably be directed a making lists of people

probably some stigmatized group with no political power.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

65. A 5-4 USSC decision just

needs to be reversed to restore the pre-Scalia meaning of the Second Amendment.
The 2010 5-4 McDonald v Chicago decision overturned an 8-0 decision that had stood for seven decades, United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). (See http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf) The five right-wing Republican political hacks who invented a spurious “individual right” to firearm ownership overturned the work of some of the finest USSC Justices in history, including Felix Frankfurter, Harlan F. Stone, Hugo Black, and Charles Evans Hughes. 

Current legal interpretation of the 2A is just a tragic historical aberration, IMO.