Guns should not be kept in houses where children are present

[beevul]

116. Yes, its called reality. Some people like it, others deny its existence.

"so why then does the NRA seems to think it is in charge of (not) writing any and all gun laws?
because they are extremists."

Oh, so now the definition of "extremist" is powerful lobby group...Mkay...better let AARP and the other powerful lobby groups know.

"i don't want examples. i also don't want to hear your 'opinion'."

Then don't read my posts.

You could always spend spend time on the brady "were not a gun ban group, we dont support gun bans" campaign website reading about how they're sup[porting another gun ban.


"so today its more like 500,000. good reason to have them registered and licensed."

Registration of firearms at the federal level is against federal law, per the firearm owners protection act of 1986. Go ahead and do away with it so you can register them, and you do away with the hughes amendment allowing brand new fully automatic weapons to be sold. Have fun with that.

"perhaps because they are completely fair."

Exhibit A.

"great, 14 states have basically NO gun laws, and you agree with that."

"Basically". LOL. Weasle worded sophistry, nothing more.

Anything short of registration and licensing is "basically no gun laws" in your view. Thanks for letting me and everyone else know where you stand.

"it isn't my job to explain the gun laws that you don't seem to give a crap about. YOU look it up, there are 14 states on the chart, completely blank."

Yes, isn't it special? The thing is, my friend, the chart may be blank, but that doesn't mean the state has ZERO gun laws. In this thing we call reality, a place in which I'm firmly rooted, and you appear to be peeking in and making ill informed and factually devoid observations, those states DO have gun laws. Just not the gun control crowds chosen gun laws. Welcome to reality in America. Most states don't have "gun control supporter" approved law packages. in fact, besides CA, NY and NJ, you're just shit out of luck for the most part. The elected representatives of most jurisdictions are told by their bosses - the people they represent - that such things are not desired. See, thats how things work, in reality.

"only TWO of them are 'blue' states, which might make you think, if you were more open-minded."

Non-sequitur. The divide on the gun issue is far less red vs blue than it is rural vs urban.

"so what if you are happy with your state's laws? what is good? what laws do you 'agree' with? free access to sniper rifles? you think everything is hunky dory all over america, and all the laws are just perfect the way they are? That is simply preposterous. of course you are being extreme- "all facts are doo doo and i know exactly how things should be" sounds pretty non-compromising to me. and to the MAJORITY of people, who don't really give a crap about defending guns or some warped version of the 2nd amendment."

It is far less preposterous than your inability to punctuate, spell correctly, or form coherent paragraphs. Continuing to try to paint as extreme, people that have already walked half way across the room - already compromised - as extremists and uncompromising, I see. Have fun with that. It isn't working, here, or nationally.

"why would i take your opinion as a fact? what about the fact that the NRA opposes all gun laws? it must be a fact, its on their site."

Dont take my word for it. I really don't care if you do or not. That doesn't change the reality of the matter, that it is factual truth.

The nra opposes all gun laws? Bwahahahaaa. Another fact devoid statement lol. At least you're consistant.

"we aren't living in the wild west anymore (which actually had more gun control laws than we do)"

And another factually devoid statement. Do you really think they had background checks back then? Maybe they had NICS checks over the telegraph wire right? You think they had restrictions on violent offenders, or prohibitions on domestic abusers? How old did one have to be back then to buy a handgun hmm? Do you think airplains in flight explosively decompress when shot with a bullet too? You think "cop killer" bullets are an issue?

Heres some free advise - get your history from somewhere other than movies.

"what does 'you get nothing in return' mean? you already said you have all the guns you want."

Wow, I guess you really don't get it.

Here, I'll give you an example of getting something in return:

Pro-gunners: "We gun owners will agree with restrictions that say no more than 30 rounds on a rifle magazine, and "natural capacity" only, on handguns (that means mags which basically fit flush to the bottom of the handgun and do not protrude more than 1/2 inch) IN RETURN, we get national concealed carry." (for example)

What normally happens and is historically factual time and time again, however, is this:

Anti-gun lobby: "Ok gun owners, were going for an assault weapon ban, magazine ban, We'll be back for more next legislative session, and you get nothing in return, go suck an egg."

So as I said:

Compromise with the anti-gun movement, has ALWAYS meant "if you meet us half way on this, we'll be content this year, and wait until next year or the year after to come back for more, and you'll get nothing in return then either". Thats a fact jack, and one you seem very eager to ignore. Me, I think thats JUST the way you like it and want it.

"this leads me to believe you are a representative of the gun industry."

Snort. I actually LOL'd when I read that. I'm a mostly retired former machinist, who runs an MMO gaming guild on an everquest EMU server, raises small furry loveable animals, and lives out in the middle of nowhere, in a state that as far as I know has no gun manufacturers.

That you would say such a thing, does confirm something to me though:

The thought of anyone supporting gun rights, based on principle, is completely alien to you.

"my point is 'we get nothing' sounds foolish. how many guns can you possibly want? oh, right, its a multi-million dollar industry, so in reality your drmatic invokation of human rights is about $$$."

I never said I wanted any more guns, in fact, if I recall correctly, I said I didn't want any more, and that I had all I need. Go put that shoe on someone who it actually fits lol.

"a lot of which go out of the country (russian ar-15s, big business). good for you, what a patriot!"

OMG I can't stop laughing hahahahahaha. I actually had to clear the tears from my eyes because i was laughing so hard.

Sincerely, thank you for that.

"this was from 1939, you legal whiz, and says that not just the 'militia' has the right to guns, all people do. they have the right to use the same guns as the militia. those in common use. in 1939. NOT the type used by the MILITARY, by the way."

LOL. Another armchair lawyer. Miller is part of the legal underpinning of Heller, which says:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
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. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretationof the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.

Incidentally, that is also supported by the preamble to the bill of rights which reads:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution


The decision goes on:

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—
in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Get someone to explain what that means, if necessary.


"semi-auto for hunting is disgustingly unsportsmanlike, in my book."

Thats nice. I feel the same way about your book, as you do about my opinion. And, I don't hunt, fwiw. 4 out of 5 gun owners dont, in fact.


"smoking laws stopped people from smoking in bars. that is an actual addiction, whereas guns are kind of a fetish the NFA seems to have stopped murders committed by fully automatic machine gun pretty well.
so try and be a little more informed."

I bet you really believe nobody smokes in bars anymore in spite of the prohibition, too.

Fully automatic weapons were never commonplace for the average gun owner. Semi-automatic weapons are. Rather than tell me to be a little more informed, could you tell me more about those russian ar-15s that are such big business? I'll just bet its a cool story bro.

"oh, all those poor millions in CA and MA being oppressed! there will be a revolt! for sure!"


Non-sequitur.

"the people that do the bad things own the guns, so... you are projecting something somebody typed on a chatboard into a vast conspiracy."

In some cases, not in all. And its a tiny tiny percentage that misuse them. Three hundred million plus guns, 80 plus million gun owbners. Less than 1 percent misuse them, according to stastics. But some blame ALL gun owners, which you seem to give your blessing.

"C. has been attacking gun ownership for decades"

"more conspiracy."

Yeah, these folks were only kidding, right? Good grief you really do live in an alternate reality:


In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.&quot

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993

Yeah, I guess those folks were just kidding, and its all just a wacked out conspiracy theory that gun ownership has been under attack for decades.

"again with the conspiracy."

The brady "were not a gun ban group, we don't support gun bans" campaign is supporting the newly proposed "assault weapon ban". They were either lieing then, or they're lieing now. You tell me which one it is, and how that doesn't qualify as dishonest or untrustworthy.

Next.


"you have to read the whole sentence to get at the meaning there! the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Oh I did. it says prohibit the "carrying", not prohibit the "ownership".

"Most states limit the magazine capacity to five rounds, and many semi-automatic hunting rifles have only four round magazine capacity."

Only when hunting, chief. Not where ownership is concerned.

And hunting has fuckall to do with this debate.

The second amendment wasn't written to protect hunting. If you didn't hunt or fish back when it was written, you starved more often than not. Hunting was a given back then.

"that;s why nobody is banning things in 'common use', you are just spouting more conspiracy."

A ban on standard capacity magazines is by definition a ban on something in common use.

Mags of between 11 and 19 rounds are STANDARD equipment for most of the handguns in America. Thats a fact.

30 round mags are STANDARD equipment on modern sporting rifles - that is, rifles which some folks call "assault weapons".

You can argue all you like, but 30 round rifle mags exist in the hundreds of millions in America, and that makes them by definition "in common use".

And lastly this little gem:

"trying to impose your 'concerns' on an entire country is foolish. especially when you have all the guns you need. you are standing up for millions of strangers, many of them CRIMINALS. aren't the people getting shot dead literally every 45 minutes strangers, too? so why don't you care about them? some are criminals. some are little kids. way too many little kids. and please don't post any crap about using kids for politics, that crap is inhumane."

Oh, but trying to impose your concerns isn't? LOL. pot meet kettle. Yes, thats right, I'm standing up for complete strangers, some of them criminals, just the same as when I stand up for freedom of speech, or when I stand up for a womans right to choose. I stand for those things, based on something called principle. Principle dictates that I stand up for freedom of speech, even though on occasion, the kkk benefits from it. The ACLU, of which i'm a member, agrees with that.

Just because I'm principled doesn't mean I don't care. It means there are some things I wont agree to, in spite of the fact I care. Thats about as text book a definition of principled as you can get.