A Roanoke reader’s 4-point proposal for federal gun control
Wikimedia Commons
Note from Dan: Roanoke resident George Christenbury sent his proposal for gun control to me last week. The proposal, in the form of a letter to Sen. Mark Warner, is after the jump.
By George Christenbury
I often read your column and think you display good common sense. I like to think that I too have at least a little myself.
In the days following the recent tragedy in Newtown, CT, I had an idea that I thought my be a simple, effective start in addressing the issue of increasing gun violence. I wrote a letter to each member of my Congressional delegation with copies to the President and Vice President.
To date I have received a form letter reply from Senator Warner. I still think that we, as a society, need to make a start toward long-term solutions to the problem. Is there one answer, of course not, but the complex book length bills now proposed probably stand little chance of implementation.
In my opinion, the best way to make progress is to do something, anything, to get started. The enclosed proposal would be a bill that is less than half a page long and would effect real change. Thank you for your time and I would be glad to clarify or discuss the attached. I think “we the people” need to impress our representatives with the urgency of this matter.
Dec. 25, 2012
Senator Mark Warner
475 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Warner,
I am one of your constituents. I think I speak for many other Americans who are tired of the current climate in the United States Congress where dissatisfaction with the choice of the American electorate in the last two presidential elections has resulted in the more radical elements of Congress doing everything in their power to thwart any progress on any front. This is causing turmoil in our economy and threatens our recovery, but that pales in importance to dealing with growing gun violence in America.
Wikimedia Commons
No rational human being can ignore the recent events in Newtown, CT. The visiting of such violence on young innocents cannot be explained or dismissed. There is neither one cause nor one cure for the ever-increasing frequency and magnitude of these horrible acts. However, I am proposing a first step in the process that would simply and cheaply reduce the firepower available to the deranged souls who perpetrate these acts. Although I am sure some will disagree, the following change in Federal Law would be a step in the right direction and, over time, greatly reduce the firepower of the perpetrators of these mass shootings.
PROPOSED FEDERAL LAW:
1. Six months from passage: Possession, sale, or manufacture of any magazine that will combine with the interior magazine of any firearm to produce a capacity of more than 6 (six) rounds will be illegal. The possession, sale, or manufacture of firearms with internal capacity in excess 6 (six) rounds will be illegal. Existing firearms with internal capacity greater than 6 (six) rounds must be modified permanently to limit capacity to 6 (six) rounds. The penalty should be a misdemeanor with a significant fine.
2. This law does not apply to local, state or federal law enforcement agencies, military purchases or exports to foreign military forces. This law would not apply to .22 or .17 caliber rim fire rifles manufactured prior the date of implementation above.
3. This law applies to all non-military, non-law enforcement imports and exports, regardless of importing/exporting country’s law.
4. Two years from passage: the penalty will become a lower-level felony.
I think that the above approach would provide a positive first step toward dealing with the heartbreaking events we have seen in Tucson, Aurora and Newtown. I agree with President Obama concerning the need to take steps to curb the violence. Below I will try to address the pros and cons of this approach.
PROS AND CONS:
• Reduces fire rate of weapons most often involved in mass shootings. Changing magazines provides a window for intervention such as in the assault on Rep. Giffords. If my memory serves, the assailant was subdued when he tried to reload. If his pistol had only six rounds vs. thirty-three, perhaps lives would have been spared. Adoption would also begin to reduce the number of times police officers find themselves outgunned by the criminal.
• It is simple and cheap. No firearms would be taken or outlawed. The cost to gun owners would in most cases be minimal. Gun manufacturers should get a two-fold benefit; a short spurt of additional sales of the smaller magazines and a reduction in manufacturing costs from the standardization of magazine size. Sales should be the same numerically but less costly to make.
• Most of the traditional shooting sports would not be affected. The six round limit is not a problem for any revolver of which I am aware. This combined with the legality of multiple clips for auto-loading pistols leaves the typical home defense gun owner in good shape. In the case of shotguns, hunters are generally limited to three rounds by hunting regulations. Most long hunting rifles, as well as AR-15 type weapons, are generally limited in the same way for most species hunting. Any hunter who complains that six rounds is not enough should probably go to the range. Target shooters generally put more emphasis on accuracy vs. rate of fire. The people who enjoy “tactical” sports just need to add reloading as one of the necessary skills in the sport.
• No one law will assure that “this will never happen again.” The problem is multi-faceted and cannot be solved by any one action. We as a society must begin somewhere. A uniform limit to magazine capacity for all firearms is a positive start.
• Some may think that elevating this offence to a felony is overkill but this law must have severe consequences since fines alone are often just seen as a cost of doing business by too many in this country. The Federal law making possession of an illegal firearm a felony with mandatory jail time is a good model.
• The NRA’s solution is to put armed guards into all schools. This would only serve to introduce hundreds of thousands of new firearms into schools and other public venues at taxpayer expense. By my calculations it would result in between $150 and $250 million in sales for gun manufacturers, the ones who financially support the NRA, as well as roughly $1 billion per year to support what will be functionally a new government entitlement program.
I do not intend to be derisive of any current or future government employee but anyone who took Intro to Economics will be familiar with the guns v. butter scenario. These new school guards would produce zero economic value for the dollars spent and so would functionally be one more government entitlement program. They may save a few lives, although armed guards at Columbine High School were generally not effective. More than one billion dollars a year for children’s health could be spent far more effectively than on more guns and armed government agents. Their basic premise that the weapon used is not in any way a factor is absurd. Large capacity magazines are for inflicting large-scale carnage and they are good at what they do. The bottom line is that the NRA approach is highly questionable on many levels and only makes the problem worse. Imagine elementary schools with high fences and perhaps barbed wire, classroom windows with bars, no field trips because of a Clint Eastwood movie, and armed patrols in the halls. This whole dark scenario is too Orwellian for me.
In conclusion, it is time to stop acting like petulant children and compromise to get the people’s business done. It is past time to start dealing with the problem of mass shootings in the United States. If you have any compassion for those who are visited with this scourge on an almost daily basis, you will ignore the monied corporate interests in this matter and ACT! Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
February 1, 2013 - 6:00 AM
As a firearms enthusiast, I agree that as a country and as a species we need to curb violence. That being said, I ask you this: What happened when Alcohol was prohibited by the 18th amendment in 1920? Organized crime soared and people (particularly the wealthy) still drank, so the law was repealed in 1933 with the 21st amendment. I would expect something similar to happen with a law such as the one proposed.
I have an alternative proposal that I am sure would also be unpopular, but would almost certainly slow gun violence as a whole (not just mass shootings):
-Ban the public sale of all pre-assembled center-fire ammunition and rim-fire ammunition over .25 caliber.
People often forget that firearms are pretty worthless without ammunition. If someone who wishes to harm a large group of people under such a ban, they would have to go through the trouble of buying the equipment and supplies (press, dies, brass, primers, powder, and bullets) to load their own ammo as opposed to simply walking into (insert hunting supply store here), picking up a few boxes and walking out as they can now. This could very well serve to reduce the number of one-on-one gun-related crimes due to the low probability that criminals (most of them, anyway) would go through the trouble of fabbing up their own rounds.
Problems with such a ban would revolve around the political will-power to get it done, and the economic fallout from more-or-less shutting down every boutique ammunition manufacturer across the country (Double-Tap and Buffalo Bore come to mind here).
-Ban the public sale of all pre-assembled center-fire ammunition and rim-fire ammunition over .25 caliber.
You do realize that the ammunition fired by the standard AR-15 is smaller than that caliber, right?
It is just doggone EXCELLENT to hear actual suggestions and ideas! Thank you George Christenbury and
Sorry, hit post too soon and thank you ADifferentHenry!
I think we should also make illicit drugs like cocaine and heroin illegal. They have been the catalyst for many of the murders in the country.
I find it interesting that they want the police to have these weapons but not the public. What’s the rationale for that allowance?
Jack,
yes, I realize that the AR platform uses .223, but it is NOT rim-fire. The intent of that verbiage is to permit the sale of assembled .22LR and .17HMR
So how are you going to get those outlawed magazines away from Criminals that are perpetuating the violence?
Criminals are prohibited from possessing guns, so just take away their guns. You claim that the rights of the few do not count, only the safety of the many. So I say enforce the laws on the books by removing & incarcerating criminal in possession of guns. Go find them!
Your proposal will make an accidental criminals from law-abiding citizens.
“I think we should also make illicit drugs like cocaine and heroin illegal. They have been the catalyst for many of the murders in the country. “
–Henry
Following Henry’s logic, universal background checks + more stringent enforcement to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill = more murders!
Can anyone explain how that works to the rest of us?
yes, I realize that the AR platform uses .223, but it is NOT rim-fire. The intent of that verbiage is to permit the sale of assembled .22LR and .17HMR
Comment by ADifferentHenry — February 1, 2013 @ 9:08 am
Read again: -Ban the public sale of all pre-assembled center-fire ammunition and rim-fire ammunition over .25 caliber.
It says center-fire and rim-fire.
So the proposal in a nutshell is we should make it extremely expensive and overly burdensome to your average law abiding American in an attempt to try to stop criminals?
He says he’s a firearms enthusiast and then his suggestions gut the ability to defend yourself or your family. I call balderdash. Tons of anti-gun people state their are hunters or gun enthusiasts and then their next words are to confiscate everyone’s firearms. If he really is an enthusiast, then most likely he owns all the reloading gear and doesn’t care about the cost to every other gun owner in the country. The only thing the reloading suggestion would do is create a massive black market for ammunition.
Limiting magazines: The number of news stories continue to increase regarding gangs of thugs or youths beating, robbing and killing people for imagined slights or just to steal their wallets and cell phones. Six rounds would not be enough to adequately defend yourself or your family in the face of one of these gangs. How about a law that limits criminals to only six rounds. The criminals will continue to ignore your laws, but maybe you’ll feel better and us law abiding Americans won’t have to die for you to feel better.
The real solution is to learn from our past. Those who do not are doomed to repeat it. We’ve tried the most stringent gun controls and those areas as havens for criminals. All one has to do is look at Chicago, NYC and Wash DC where the crime rates are the highest in the nation. Criminals seek easy prey. The real solution is to repeal “Gun Free Zones” since all they do is provide criminals with easy targets. There’s an obvious reason the vast majority of mass shootings occur in Gun Free Zones…easy targets. Let’s stop putting huge targets on the backs of our children. Each mass shooting stops as soon as the criminal is confronted by anyone who can actually defend themselves. Gun Free Zones = Death Zones.
“Following Henry’s logic,”
I don’t think you know the meaning of the word “following”.
If these weapons and their ammunition are such a menace, why do we let police have them? What possible use would they have for the police and federal agents?
No, this is silly. If I forget I have a 30 round magazine laying around I’m a felon? Do I turn my greater than 6 round magazines into the police or something? These type of discussions are going to go on and on and on with no resolution because there is no solution. Bad people will do bad things. Tragedies will continue to happen. We can’t legislate tornadoes, hurricanes, car wrecks, etc etc etc out of our lives. We cannot legislate gun tragedies out of our lives. There are millions of guns and high capacity magazines in our country and they are not going away.
While we are playing pretend and ignoring the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment, I suggest we make Friday “FREE” ice cream and pizza day. It would be paid for by the City…so it would be totally FREE!
LOL
Following Henry’s logic, there is no logic. If a law cannot be perfect and stop every instance of crime, it should not be a law?
Henry, do the words “law enforcement” have any meaning to you at all? Should scientists have no more materials at their disposal than a ditch digger? Should astronauts be limited to automobiles like the rest of us? Should surgeons use “the amazing Ginsu knife” like the rest of us?
There is no perfect solution for gun control so let their rights keep being paid for in blood and terrorism. Sure, that sounds reasonable.
It is amazing how quickly we became the sheep who take off our shoes and stand for a pat down and instructions on what we can have on board to travel in a plane yet howl like wounded animals over not being able to shoot fast enough or with bullets with real damage power? We are a sick society.
Read again: -Ban the public sale of all pre-assembled center-fire ammunition and rim-fire ammunition over .25 caliber.
Criminals will get what they want, they don’t obey the law, that is why they are criminals. Randall Smith murdered & shot people with his 22LR rimfire ammo. This murder was in your back yard.
“. . .Randall Lee Smith. In 1981 Smith befriended two hikers on the trail. But in the middle of the night, while the three slept at the Appalachian Trail’s Wapiti Shelter in southwestern Virginia, Smith shot one of his new companions in the head with a .22 bullet and, after a struggle, killed the other one in a gruesome stabbing. In a plea deal, he was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder for his crimes.
After 15 years behind bars, Smith was paroled in 1996. But whatever lessons he had learned in prison didn’t stick. In 2008, just miles from the site of the original attack, Smith attempted to kill two fishermen he met under similar circumstances. This time, however, the pair survived the attack, despite numerous gunshot wounds to the head, neck, and chest. Smith, however, did not. As he attempted to escape, he crashed his getaway truck. He survived long enough to be taken to prison before dying from the injuries he sustained.
Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/14/7-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-appalachian-trail/#ixzz2Jf05ekQZ
Jack,
My apologies for it being poorly written. Is this better?
-Ban the public sale of all pre-assembled rim-fire ammunition above .25 caliber and all center-fire ammunition of any caliber. This shall not be used to prevent the sale of ammunition supplies such as empty casings, bulk bullets, bulk powders, or bulk primers.
I think we should just make it illegal to carry guns in schools, theaters, etc. We could come up with a special phrase like “NO Guns Allowed” and put signs up letting hunters and sportsmen know.
Better yet, why don’t we just TELL people they are going to get in BIG TROUBLE if they shoot someone?
That should work.
“If these weapons and their ammunition are such a menace, why do we let police have them? What possible use would they have for the police and federal agents?”
-Henry
Rephrase:
Given that painkillers such as fentanyl and oxycodone are addictive and potentially deadly, why do we allow doctors to prescribe them? Aren’t they a menace?
Answer: Because when they’re used judiciously by licensed and trained people, they can alleviate great suffering, Henry. Can you honestly not see that?
LC, welcome back. I take it that you’ve shrugged off the sting you were feeling from the 2012 election. Congrats!
Dan,
The pain that is Obama will not be alleviated for decades, sadly. Even worse is the affirmation that we live in a country that prefers cotton candy to broccoli. Scratch-off lotto to investment. It’s a sad, sad entitlement state in which we live.
However, Obama’s 2nd term is looking just peachy.
Peace in the Middle East. No more attacks on U.S. Emabssies. N. Korea is standing down. Job numbers are HOT. Gas prices continue to plummet. New businesses are popping up everywhere!
Henry, bud, my dictionary lists 8 definitions of “follow” with numerous sub definitions. Are you saying Dan wasn’t using one of those?
Henry,
Do you really not understand the difference between law enforcement and regular citizens? No wonder you guys are so nervous without your weaponry – you keep calling Papa Johns when you need to call 911.
If these weapons and their ammunition are such a menace, why do we let police have them? What possible use would they have for the police and federal agents?
Comment by Henry — February 1, 2013 @ 9:56 am
So they can defend themselves, same reason we want them. If you think the police are obligated to use those guns to defend someone other than themselves, you are wholly naive.
Well at least you are not bitter Lake Claytor
And hey Lake (that is the new blog vernacular), George W. Bush started the “I hate broccoli” movement. Just sayin’.
So, I was reading another site, talking about the incident up here in C’ville where some 20-something decided to go into the Kroger with a loaded AR-15 as a brazen attempt to “vigorously defend his right to open carry”.
One thing I considered was if he turned a corner and someone bumped into him and he fell down, and his rifle discharged. OR maybe a kid behind him in line decided to touch the rifle while the owner was not paying attention (to the rifle or the kid.)
But one thing I didn’t consider until I read about it on another website. What if there were people with Concealed Carry Permits in the Kroger? They likely do not know this guy, nor his intention of carrying a loaded rifle and magazine into a regularly peaceful grocery store. I imagine that if not properly trained (and lets face it, our intrepid blog leader has proven BEYOND a shadow of a doubt that you don’t have to have been trained to get a CCP), the CCP holder could have been so stunned at the sight of seeing someone carry an AR-15 past the ketchup and mustard aisle, that he might draw on the guy… and creating a standoff, which could have been bloodier. This scenario seems more likely if we are to believe the gun advocates stance that “more guns = safer community”
I largely have thought the idea of “gun control reform” is about as fruitless as getting Monsanto to stop bullying farmers, or the corn syrup people to stop putting their HFCS in soda. In America, we are a culture that abhors sex but adores violence. It’s too ingrained in our national psyche for firearms to be completely gone.
However, in this time of national discussion about the responsibilities each gun owner should have and embrace… it sure seems like “Vigorous Defense of the 2nd Amendment” and Common Sense are mutually exclusive ideas.
Carrying an assault rifle to the grocery store is not an acceptable behavior. You wouldn’t carry the rifle into a hospital where you’re visiting your grandmother on life stupport, or perhaps to one of those Bouncy Castle places for your son’s birthday party. If there were the possibility of alien attack, invasion by a foreign state, then maybe it would be acceptable, but to carry it just because you can, to prove you are somehow “more right” than those who do not agree with gun ownership? That’s just stupid.
People, start thinking with your brain, not with your reactionary fear-driven heart. Embody the community you want to be where we love our neighbors, not live in fear that one might pull out a gun. Perhaps if we exhibited the idea of loving our neighbors we wouldn’t even have the need for guns and other means of inflicting violence on another person.
LC, your widsom is much appreciated in this forum. I remember back on Halloween, when you left us with this nugget:
“Basing THIS election turnout on 2008 results is the problem. Anyone who really believes the Democrats will have a D+7 advantage is smoking Whoopi’s dreadlocks.”
–Comment by LC
It turned out that the turnout was right around D+7 . . .
ADifferentHenry, the only solution that Jack, Symbols, Dave Hicks, John Wilburn, and other gun advocates will accept is our continued payment of the blood of innocents for their rights to any guns not to be infringed. That their rights enable the criminal and the unstable is of no consequence apparently.
Just as with Wayne Lapierre who railed against the “elites” and their “body guards”, then left with what we can only assume were peasant volunteers, not body guards of his own, and refuses to even back universal background checks now as too much to ask, the stench travels.
I think you made a good argument and would like to see rational debate about it, but that is not likely to happen here. Rational, comprehensive discussions get hijacked. For obvious reasons.
Thank you, Mr. Christenbury, for a thoughtful proposal. As to the appropriate penalty for violation, I would add a system of graduated sanctions:
1st Offense: Class II Misdemeanor punishable by 6 months jail/$1,000 fine. Give the court the option of a diversion program that would result in dismissal of the case upon completion of one-year of probation and/or at least 100 hours of community service.
2nd Offense: Class B Misdemeanor punishable by 6 months jail/mandatory $1,000 fine. All firearms not in compliance with the law, possessed by the any person convicted under this section, shall be confiscated and destroyed.
3rd Offense: Class C Felony punishable by up to 5 imprisonment and a $25,000 fine. All firearms not in compliance with the law, possessed by the any person convicted under this section, shall be confiscated and destroyed. Any person convicted under this section shall be prohibited from possessing a firearm for 5 years from the date of conviction.
“If you think the police are obligated to use those guns to defend someone other than themselves, you are wholly naive.”
I can’t decide whether you just haven’t noticed that people pretty much ignore you when you keep repeating this stupidity, or whether you keep repeating in hopes that people will finally react, Jack. Either way, it ain’t working.
I think it’s interesting that the gunners seem to think teachers would be all excited about using guns to “protect” their students, whereas cops are more likely to just stand around doing nothing. Something seriously flawed in that thinking.
I’m just throwing this out there. Okay, so you limit the legal capacity of magazines to six bullets. If I want to kill a big group of people, and I have access to are revolvers that hold six rounds, I just take two revolvers and I now have 12 rounds. One in each hand and a third in a waistband holster, and now I have 18 rounds. I just shoot until the guns I am holding are empty and throw them down and grab the next one on my person.
I am not suggesting that laws should not be passed just because they are not perfect or would not stop ever single incident. A new law should at least, however, make the targeted incident significantly less likely to happen. The scenario I described above could be pulled off without much effort…someone who has the sick desire to do so could still gun down a lot of people in a short amount of time even if all they had available were six shot revolvers.
I welcome any and all thoughts on this, agreeing or disagreeing. It would be nice if, as Sandy said, they are in the spirit of rational debate.
“If you think the police are obligated to use those guns to defend someone other than themselves, you are wholly naive.”
–Jack
Jack, we’re well aware of the court case you have cited in the past as support for this statement. But the way you phrase it hints at the possibility that you regard police officers less as public servants than as independent gunslingers who’ve managed to figure out a way to collect taxpayer-funded checks to support their gun fetishes.
And I don’t think that’s the case at all.
George, Dan and any other anti-gun person, please consider putting a sign on your house or lawn to support the cause.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt1Zy_ASNyA
Rob, buddy, I don’t junk up my lawn with any kind of yard sign. However, a sign saying your home is gun free would certainly have the advantage of telling burglars that there are no firearms to steal. Firearms are one of the things burglars just LOVE to find. And the vast majority of people who want to steal from you are going to wait until they know you aren’t home — guns or no guns. It’s just a lot easier to get away with.
Oops, Jack, it appears that you have now played your “cops aren’t obligated to protect you” stuck record so many times that folks finally had to point out the idiocy of what you’re inferring. Congrats.
One thing I considered was if he turned a corner and someone bumped into him and he fell down, and his rifle discharged.
That wouldn’t happen. The safety would have had to be off AND the trigger would have had to have been pulled. I doubt that would have been the case.
One thing I considered was if he turned a corner and someone bumped into him and he fell down, and his rifle discharged.
That wouldn’t happen. The safety would have had to be off AND the trigger would have had to have been pulled. I doubt that would have been the case.
But one thing I didn’t consider until I read about it on another website. What if there were people with Concealed Carry Permits in the Kroger? They likely do not know this guy, nor his intention of carrying a loaded rifle and magazine into a regularly peaceful grocery store. I imagine that if not properly trained (and lets face it, our intrepid blog leader has proven BEYOND a shadow of a doubt that you don’t have to have been trained to get a CCP), the CCP holder could have been so stunned at the sight of seeing someone carry an AR-15 past the ketchup and mustard aisle, that he might draw on the guy… and creating a standoff, which could have been bloodier. This scenario seems more likely if we are to believe the gun advocates stance that “more guns = safer community”
That would not have happened with me, and I doubt John Wilburn or Dave Hicks would have drawn on the guy, either.
I can’t decide whether you just haven’t noticed that people pretty much ignore you when you keep repeating this stupidity, or whether you keep repeating in hopes that people will finally react, Jack. Either way, it ain’t working.
Comment by gdad — February 1, 2013 @ 11:27 am
You’re welcome to review the relevant case law. I point you to Warren v. District of Columbia and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services.
I’m repeating it because it is the truth, and it is settled law.
Most of this proposal is built on false premises, though I’m happy to see people taking the time to come up with involved ideas and not just shouting the idioms du jour.
“Reduces fire rate of weapons most often involved in mass shootings”
FALSE. It only increases the reloading rate. Fire rate of a firearm is minimally affected by magazine capacity. Someone proficient in magazine extraction and replacement can do so in under a second.
The cost to gun owners would in most cases be minimal.
FALSE. You can hardly get a gunsmith to even look at your guns for under a hundred bucks. To ask for modification of existing gun magazines, especially tubular magazines such as in lever-action rifles, would place a most heavy burden indeed on owners. If I were to modify my guns to your proposed standard, it would cost me at least $1000, not including buying new removable mags for the others that didn’t have to be internally modified. That’s well over $1000 I’ll be forced to spend on guns that I have purchased legally and have never used to commit a crime.
The six round limit is not a problem for any revolver of which I am aware.
FALSE. I have two nine-shot revolvers. Granted, they are .22 caliber but Ruger is still manufacturing it’s Single-Nine today. There are also nine-shot revolvers available from High Standard, H&R and Taurus. Essentially, this makes your claim that no guns would be outlawed also false, because those companies would have to discontinue those models.
…and a reduction in manufacturing costs from the standardization of magazine size.
FALSE. Many machines will have to be retooled to fit your standards. That costs time, which is money. That is time that the machines are not producing, which costs money. Also, just because you standardize the magazine capacity doesn’t mean you standardize magazines to fit all guns. So, that’s multiple magazine designs having to be retooled, as well. There would be an increase in production costs, albeit temporary, which would then be passed down to the legal consumer.
Most of the traditional shooting sports would not be affected.
FALSE. There are entire sport shooting circuits that would have to change everything for this proposed law. They would have to change their entire rules and scoring structures.
Just because you think it won’t cost much money or otherwise be burdensome doesn’t mean that it won’t. This proposal punishes gun makers and law-abiding citizens only. Criminals just won’t care and there are literally thousands of high-cap magazines out there already. A new law on magazine sizes is unlikely to make someone intent on mass carnage hesitate for even one minute. To think that criminals will just willingly hand over their high-cap mags and guns is the ultimate in absurdity.
We have to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. This proposal does very little to achieve that end and shows little knowledge of manufacturing processes and the costs of changing/discontinuing literally hundreds of models of guns and magazines. This would ultimately affect only law-abiding gun owners as the costs of these modifications would be passed on to the consumer. This is not to mention that it would create an entirely new black market in the outlawed guns/magazines.
You’ve got your eye on one of the many problems with gun violence, but I think that you’re looking in the wrong direction.
Jack, we’re well aware of the court case you have cited in the past as support for this statement. But the way you phrase it hints at the possibility that you regard police officers less as public servants than as independent gunslingers who’ve managed to figure out a way to collect taxpayer-funded checks to support their gun fetishes.
And I don’t think that’s the case at all.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 1, 2013 @ 11:48 am
I’m certainly not suggesting that most of them would not help you. I don’t believe that law enforcement officers went into the law enforcement business to get rich… however, they are not obligated to, and that’s the point I am trying to make.
The law enforcement folks I know (and I have friends at the local and federal law enforcement levels) would definitely do what they could to save your life if it came down to it.
Again, I’m just trying to remind you that they are not obligated to.
If trained people should be able to have these weapons, doesn’t that mean former military should be allowed to have them? Of course they are trained with them.
It seems rather stupid that the response to a shooting by a criminal is to punish the victims by making them more defenseless. After all, if we don’t need these weapons to defend ourselves, the police certainly don’t need them.
If these AR-15′s are so dangerous, why did Obama give so many of them to the Mexican drug cartels?
“It turned out that the turnout was right around D+7 . . .”
Dan,
I woefully underestimated the depths of our country’s problems (if you can believe it) and the true power of the “low information voter”. Obama was very smart there. He knew that playing Santa Claus and saying anything he wanted (with help from the media) would win the day with those folks. They still have no clue what’s going on. These folks would believe Obama if he told them the GOP should be blamed for ObamaCare. LOL.
My absence from your blog is a resolution of sorts. Far too much time wasted arguing. Faith in men (ANY of them) is foolishness. I only blame myself for participating in it for so long.
Hope ya’ll have a great weekend!
Jack,
Thanks for your response, and thank you for (i assume) being trained.
However, You assume that everyone keeps their safety on, which I’m certain does not happen. You also assume that everyone will keep their cool, which I’m certain would not happen.
You are living in a world of fear-encrusted, fox news watching, reactionaries who blow things out of proportions.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/gps-mistake-allegedly-leads-deadly-driveway-shooting/story?id=18346144
A guy pulls into the wrong driveway and gets killed by a former veteran.
Not even “trained military” is exempt from blowing things way out of proportion and killing first and asking questions later.
So yeah. I rest my case… it is still not appropriate to take your AR-15 shopping with you.
LC proves to be yet another electoral denier, those who think the millions of urban, suburban and rural middle class and up whites whose receipt of government benefits is no different than the typical GOTP’er and who voted for Obama out of “dependency”, while GOTP voters with the exact same government benefit profile were somehow more independent and of course (LC thinks) better informed.
Keep on thinking that, LC, Glenn Beck’s mortgage won’t pay itself.
Speaking of low information, LC, The Heritage Foundation formulated Obamacare originally, and Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney championed it. So you’re the low information voter on that; and maybe you should get your daddy to explain to you that he’s not a federal employee now, and won’t be even after 2014.
I suggest we now officially create a name for the scale that measures how long a supporter of the losers Romney and Ryan take to return to this blog: the LC scale. As in, one LC equals approximately fourteen weeks.
OK, I admit it. I was a bit harsh on the welcome back to Lake Claytor. I misunderestimate stuff frequently myself.
(But I try not to do it with such vehemence.)
Welcome back for real, LC!
“Low information” = dumb cliche
Let’ try again, Jack. As Dan also mentioned, we’re well aware of the “established” law (mostly because you keep bringing it up over and over), but the way you present it DOES indeed make it sound like you’re suggesting that your average LEO is likely to just stand around muttering the law to himself while doing nothing to stop a murder. If that’s not your point, there’s really no use in continuing to kick that horse.
Jack,
Thanks for your response, and thank you for (i assume) being trained.
You’re welcome. I practice and receive additional training on a regular basis. In fact, in March I will be going with the wife to West Virginia for a full day defensive handgun class. Should be exciting.
However, You assume that everyone keeps their safety on, which I’m certain does not happen. You also assume that everyone will keep their cool, which I’m certain would not happen.
Many handguns to not have safety switches, however, the AR-15 does have one. It’s the same switch that would offer the select-fire on a fully-automatic version. I do not carry an AR-15 anywhere, as I’ve said before, but even when handling it at the range the safety is on when I am not ready to shoot it.
To draw a gun legally, I believe, has the same requirements as using the gun. I would not draw my own gun, at least, unless my life was in imminent danger or some other innocent party’s was. If the AR-15 on this person was on his back in a sling, I would not consider anyone to be in danger. My gun would stay right where it was, in its holster.
A guy pulls into the wrong driveway and gets killed by a former veteran.
I saw this story. The shoot was clearly unjustified, at least in my opinion, and he was charged appropriately.
By the way, it was a .22LR that he used to kill the guy in the car. The same .22LR that the original poster on this thread seemed to indicate wasn’t a problem.
So yeah. I rest my case… it is still not appropriate to take your AR-15 shopping with you.
I don’t disagree. But, while it may not be appropriate, it doesn’t mean that it is not his right. It is also the store owner’s right to ask him to leave, which is I believe what happened.
There have been many inappropriate things said by people in the past, too, but it doesn’t mean that their speech, as inappropriate as it is, is not protected.
gdad,
When you folks stop believe that the police have a right to defend themselves that the rest of us don’t, then I’ll stop mentioning WvDC and DvWC.
Deal?
LC…”Blah blah blah blah Blameblah bla blah”
Translation…”My guy got his lunch eaten…I’m out of here”
“Low information” = dumb cliche
Comment by gdad — February 1, 2013 @ 2:02 pm
low information is a valid truth these days g, you dont know about it because you are one of them…LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Mention low information and dumb cliches, and pammalala comes running. At least we know you come when called, pammalala.
The guy that took his AR to the store with him was exercising his 1st Amendment right to demonstrate his disapproval of the demonization of black semiautomatic rifles. It was unloaded, in a sling on his back, and he called the police before he left to let them know what he was doing and why.
Not something I would have done, but that’s what he did and why. It wasn’t Bubba casually toting a loaded AR to Wal Mart to pick up fishing worms using his evil rifle for protection. It had more to do with the 1st A than 2nd in this particular case.
22LR ammo is certainly lower-powered than many alternatives, and a lot of people I’ve talked to do not recommend using it for defense purposes because it can sometimes be fickle in a semi-automatic with respect to fully cycling the spent cartridge and loading the next round (that happens with our Sig Sauer 1911 that uses 22LR, but mostly after we’ve fired 100 rounds in a range day and it starts getting dirty)…plus it doesn’t have a lot of knock-down power…but it definitely can be, and is, deadly…like anything else. We have 2 .177 caliber pellet guns…one is a very low-power CO2 cartridge-powered handgun, that is basically good for target shooting and plinking, and the other is a 1200 FPS break-action rifle that I’ve killed groundhogs with, that I have no doubt could kill a person with a couple well-placed rounds. But, because it’s a single-shot rifle, it would likely just severely injure someone, or possibly just really piss them off.
45
Not an electoral denier, Warren, an electoral acknowledger. I am acknowledging who runs the country now. I am acknowledging who is steering the ship.
As I told Dan, I completely MIS-read the electorate and the true power of Obama’s message.
That, despite the historically stagnant state of our economy, these folks believe (still) with every ounce of their being that Obama will ultimately give them what they want. That the government not only has the answer, it IS the answer. And lastly, that the rich (this now means ANY taxpayer) must pay in higher/more taxes/fees, etc.
I, naively, thought people didn’t prefer being unemployed to having a job. I believed that most folks still appreciated productivity and that they admired success. I thought people expected results from their leaders. So silly of me, I know that now.
In short, it turns out that people don’t like broccoli…or JOBS (apparently). They’d much rather have cotton candy. Obama knew that. Amazing genius!
This truly is Obama’s America, I get it now.
I see the light!
Low information voters are the future.
LOL.
I think a law that mandates posting signs stating that “criminals/or those considering a criminal act are not allowed to possess (any) firearms” would completely solve the problem…
Works well for the “deer crossing” signs…
Or maybe pass a law that mandates police response within 10 seconds of a potential crime…
Snark off…
Jason, re: 11:17
If you knew your neighbor was in violation of these proposed laws and you called police, do you believe law enforcement has the obligation to validate your claim?
gdad, re:” Firearms are one of the things burglars just LOVE to find.”
Not when they are pointed at them….
Warren, re: “obamacare”
Have you read that the “cheapest” obamacare will cost the average family 20k (according to the IRS) for the wonderful “bronze” plan?
Or they can pay the penalty (err… tax… err.. penalty or whatever) of $2,400
But not to worry, it does not apply to those here illegally…
While everyone is discussing the making of ammo and limiting pistol vs revolver rounds, I thought that I would give y’all some data to think about from an engineer who has dealt with designing…things…using armor plating. Talking with people who deal with this got me into researching body armor and along the way I came across data dealing with self defense. I’m not an expert in self defense, but here is some information that I came across, the reports that this data came from may or may not be on the internet. So here goes from my memory.
Confrontations with mayhem are at 10 feet or less. Stand with you back to someone, take 3 paces and about face. Pull your finger gun and notice how close you are.
Officer involved shootings average 10 shots fired…2 hits. That’s 20% accuracy from someone who is very well trained. A 6 shot revolver…1 hit.
Hits required to stop someone who is not determined to harm you…2. It doesn’t matter about caliber. Anything works from 22 to 45. I think it was last week that a woman was in her house hiding from an intruder. He found her and she fired all (5) 0.38 special rounds, hit all 5 times including head and neck. He walked out of her house, got into his car, drove some distance asked for help. Police caught him. 911 had been notified and police were in route when all this went down.
Hits required to stop someone who is determined to harm you. The human body is very resilient. These people are high on adrenaline, PCP, cocaine, heroine, etc. They don’t feel pain and are willing to die to get you. It’s hard to find any information on this on the internet. Many years ago I read an FBI report that was done and it was not definitive, however it did provide some information to think about. The only way to stop someone is a brain shot, sever spinal cord, or bleed out. If you completely destroy the heart a person will still have 10-15 seconds of complete conscience control of his actions. While you are standing 3 paces from your target count to 15 or continuously run around the room for 15 seconds. The report, as I remember it, was comparing 9mm to a 45 acp. To completely stop somebody it took an average of (12) 9mm rounds and (5) 45 acp rounds. These reports are a combination of reviewing police reports and test data. Now, remember the news story from last week. She hit him 5 times and he walked away. What would have happened if he was a determined perpetrator? She was out of ammo.
Lastly, when people are shot they are not normally naked. For winter time, FBI tests are done with 4 layers of denim over gel. I have also heard of other tests done using leather as the top layer. To have any stopping ability the FBI standard is 12” of penetration into the gel. 38, 9mm, 380 auto etc. may not have the ability to achieve this. This is why most police departments changed over to 40 or 10 mm.
If you want to be impressed, go and look up body armor. You’ll notice that they don’t guarantee and most common body armor is only good for small calibers and they have steel plates inside them. So next time you see a police officer remember he is not wearing a bullet proof vest. The shear fact that the officer will go into harms way for us always impresses me.
Quite a proposal Mr. Christenbury. Is it April 1st already?
Why are the police exempt from your proposed ban? They are, after all, civilians, like you and me (police are NOT the military). If I don’t need a magazine that would hold more than 6 rounds to protect myself from criminals, why then would a police officer need one to protect himself from those exact same criminals?
On the contrary Lake Claytor, I think the 2012 election proved the lack of any “true power of the “low information voter”. They lost for very valid reasons. They were not informed, not right and not offering anything productive. What exactly is it you are claiming Santa Barack is going to give us, that Santa Romney would not have?
On the contrary Lake Claytor, I think the 2012 election proved the lack of any “true power of the “low information voter”. They lost for very valid reasons. They were not informed, not right and not offering anything productive.
Oh, and don’t forget the Democrats stole HUNDREDS of precincts in swing states.
LC, you just underestimated the American people’s ability to see past Romney/Ryan’s hair-and-mirrors platform.
Mr.VanCleave, if you think that you’re just like the police, why don’t you go and try to arrest someone. Or execute a search warrant. Or pull someone over for speeding.
Silly.
Symbols, where did you read he called the police or that the gun was unloaded?
http://www.readthehook.com/109067/open-carry-man-confronts-gun-toting-kroger-shopper
It was a different story. In Utah and in a JC Penny.
When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you get Paul’s vote. When you have more Pauls than Peters, you get the results of the last two Presidential Elections.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, your favorite elements to debate are “Militia”, “Regulated”, and “Infringed”. Let’s take a look at the meaning of these words in the context of the time and manner in which they were used along with legal precedence that has been established.
Militia – it is commonly debated that the militia is the military, or at least now that we have a military it is irrelevent. Not so. By definition:
mi·li·tia (m-lsh) n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
The definitions above make it clear that it is ordinary citizens, not professionals, not part of a regular army, and the whole body of physically fit civilians. It is, we the people.
Regulated – one of your FAVORITE contentions is that this implies regulations, or laws, or limits in which the government places upon the militia. Well, in the context of the time and use of the word (and we’ll see next in case law), this is actually referring to the intent that the militia is to have armaments in like manner to a regular army. Well Regulated meant well armed not well governed. Remember, they are not professionals or a regular army…not under the control of the government.
In United States vs. Miller 307 U.S.174 (1939) in which Miller was arrested for carrying a sawed off shotgun without a stamp and tax paid required under the NFA of 1934. The judge ruled in Miller’s favor citing the second amendment words for word. The US appealed and Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
1.The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2.The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4.The “double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230″ was never used in any militia organization
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
It seems clear that the opinion is that the 2A ONLY protects such miltary-type weapons appropriate for a militia and make it efficient. The intent seems to be that the ordinary people have arms consistent with or at least comparable to the military weapons in order to be efficient and effective.
Infringed -definition:
in·fringe
/inˈfrinj/Verb
1.Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): “infringe a copyright”.
2.Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy”.
As we see today, people think these arbitrary limits do not INFRINGE since it is not completely banning ALL guns. The definition seems to imply that one does not have to completely ban something for it to limit, or, infringe.
I have a federal law enforcement friend who carries body armor in his trunk vault. It’s only rated for small caliber pistol rounds, but he does have some (very) heavy plates he can put in it to help with rifle rounds.
The FBI used to use 9mm some time ago, but they went up to a larger round because they didn’t feel like 9mm provided appropriate stopping power.
My friend carries .40 in his duty weapon, which is a Glock.
Wow Mike O, you are a very reliable right wing propaganda peddler!
Mr.VanCleave, if you think that you’re just like the police, why don’t you go and try to arrest someone. Or execute a search warrant. Or pull someone over for speeding.
Silly.
Comment by Kristen — February 1, 2013 @ 7:38 pm
Mr. Van Cleave actually used to be a police officer, but the point is moot.
Actually, Kristen, with the exception of North Carolina, every state permits citizens to arrest another when that other person has committed a felony that is witnessed by the arresting citizen.
The same power for things like misdemeanors, however, varies from state to state.
You should be pretty sure about what you’re doing, though, because you don’t have the same legal protections that police officers do and you are held to a different standard.
Seriously gun nuts, do you think your obvious disdain for law enforcement enhances your credibility. IF ONLY you all waited till April 1 to opine!
” The shear fact that the officer will go into harms way for us always impresses me.”
Jack, you need to explain to GO84 all about how cops don’t have to put themselves in any danger for us. He doesn’t seem to know it. Help a guy out.
In US vs. Miller, the SCOTUS went on to say:
The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of “militia” as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
“The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
Notice the court opinion is that the bear their OWN arms of the kind IN COMMON USE at the time. Semi-automatics are THE MOST COMMON rifles and handguns in common use today.
The current incarnation of a “militia” is the national guard.
http://www.ng.mil/About/default.aspx
“The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation’s longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 370th birthday on December 13, 2006. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.”
I have the utmost respect and regard for law enforcement and in the various places I have lived (due to the nature of my job) I have always had close working and personal relationships with the Sheriff and Police Chief. I’ve always served on numerous Community Boards with law enforcement.
Rightwing clowns keep screeching “voter fraud!” Prove it or put a sock in it.
LOL GO84, you would do better NOT to advertise being an “engineer who has dealt with designing…things…” and offering us your “data to think about”! Shiver!
As far as “kill shots”, aiming, spacing, and all that, IMO, buy a shotgun! See how easy that was?
What mass shooter has been “high on adrenaline, PCP, cocaine, heroine, etc”? Really? You think that is common? Have you ever been shot? As many here know, I had a brother get shot while turkey hunting. He sure appeared to be in pain, even when trying not to worry our Mom. He spent three days in the hospital for a non-life threatening wound. I do not think the average home burglar or “stick-up” man is prepared for or has experienced actually being shot.
Suzie, no matter how many times you (or your GOTP pals) say it, it does not make it true.
62.On the contrary Lake Claytor, I think the 2012 election proved the lack of any “true power of the “low information voter”. They lost for very valid reasons. They were not informed, not right and not offering anything productive. What exactly is it you are claiming Santa Barack is going to give us, that Santa Romney would not have?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 1, 2013 @ 7:24 pm
Sandi. The Gop’s real problem was not that Obama was supported by “low information” voters. It was that Romney and Ryan were supported by
“no information” voters.They had no facts, just a set of Fox entertainment/Rush Limbaugh prejudices and talking points. They attacked women, latinos, blacks, and young people and went for the southern rednecks and old white guys.And as long as they do, bless their hearts,
they’ll keep on being losers.
Oh I see Symbols, in a thread where several people commented on the story of the AR-15 guy in a Virginia Kroger, it makes perfect sense that we would all know “the guy” you just decided to throw out was a random “other” gun nut in an “other” store.
Yes, according to reports I’ve read in the Hook and what I saw on TV, he claimed the gun was “hot” which as far as I know means all he has to do is pull the trigger (read: safety off).
I believe in being able to have access to guns. I believe that people should be able to own a semi-auto AR-15 if they want to. But I also believe in a responsibility level in owning said weapon. Too many stupid people I went to high school with are running around shooting guns. I’m talking DUMB people.
Anyway, the point is.. I support gun rights as long as there’s a responsibility attached. I think it’s extremely IRRESPONSIBLE to go in a public place with that weapon. I mean, isn’t the expectation that in this great country of ours that we should be able to go a public place and not be scared of criminals who may try to rob/kill us? In these places, doesn’t it seem to just exacerbate the fear and succumb to the bad guys if we feel the need to be packing heat just to feel safe? It’s one thing if you have a Saturday Night Special tucked away (and the legal permits to do so) but it’s totally another to be such an idiot to carry a big rifle like that to the grocery store.
The simple fact that we’re even talking about it and debating it shows how out-of-the-normal it is to do something like that. This guy was just trying to make the news, or worse, to “prove a point” but what he really did was introduce a level of danger to himself and to those around him. It may be his constitutional right to carry a weapon, but there’s a responsibility attached to that right. In the same way we have the right to free speech, we are not permitted to yell “fire” in a theater just to see what happens.
Jack, I agree with what you say, but your responses still do not change the fact that while in this situation with the AR-15 in C’ville, nothing happened, that it couldn’t possibly happen in the future. You still do not dispute the notion that not all people are trained, not all people are mentally capable of handling their weapon in public, and that bad things CAN occur. There are far too many possibilities of bad scenarios than there is the single scenario where nothing goes wrong.
I feel like the AR-15 has its place in the world. But that place is most certainly, definitely, not in Kroger, or any other semi-private or public place where people who don’t know each other gather. You want to go to a private gun club, or go hunting, then that’s one thing. I would defend your right to do so.
But come on. this is just getting silly.
And for the record, while I think there should be some sort of “gun responsibility”, banning certain types of weapons or large magazines is a band-aid that will do little to no good.
It needs to be responsible licensure, and training. Not the free-for-all that exists today in America (and in particular in Virginia.)
http://www2.wsls.com/news/2013/feb/01/some-violent-crimes-20-roanoke-city-ar-2505388/
Doh.
“The presentation, already on-line on city’s council agenda, explains that aggravated assaults and gun murders were up 20 percent in the city in 2012 compared to 2011.”
Rightwing clowns keep screeching “voter fraud!” Prove it or put a sock in it.
The proof is the results. Can I say it again?
lol.
Good grief Symbols, you should share, whatever it is!
So “Well Regulated meant well armed not well governed”? Why could the Founders not manage, even in all the re-writes and revisions and state statues to rely on, not just say “well armed”? Hint: because that is not what they meant.
Stop pulling things out of the context they were written in (or the way they were used)! “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.” Did you forget anything?
Well regulated means that the government was involved, had points of contact, and could call them up and expect them to respond, which oddly enough they did on at least a couple occasions before we figured out the whole law enforcement and standing army plan. The Virginia National Guard, not the VCDL is the modern equivalent if you need a point of reference.
#57: “In short, it turns out that people don’t like broccoli…or JOBS (apparently).”
Lake’s latest ludicrous lament
Did anyone catch the jobs report today (I mean, besides DJIA traders)?
Well, it seems that all those panicky GOTP’ers who said the numbers released before the election weren’t accurate were actually correct. It turns out the numbers were too low! Those employment figures for late 2012 were revised upward in today’s report, and the DJIA then went past 14,000 for the first time since 2007, before the dangerous economic crash that happened in Bush’s final year as president.
Turns out broccoli is delicious, but Lake will be having crow.
It has been interpreted and referenced to mean it protects ordinary citizens right to have arms in common use at the time, of a kind being military-style and or in use by militias as to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. Period. Deny it all you want, but I can post links to several more Supreme Court cases that support this. Limiting capacity to 6 shots would not be arms in common use nor support the efficiency of a militia encountering a force not bound by such capacity limits.
For anyone tempted to believe anything Mike O or the right wing media says about the ACA Penalty:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/02/01/irs-releases-proposed-regs-for-health-care-law-whos-covered-whos-exempt-and-what-happens-if-you-dont-want-to-pay/
Sandi, it is purely the intoxicating effect of truth and knowledge. I do not drink or do drugs.
I’m not sure why YOU believe that you alone hold the patent on the intention and meaning of the founding fathers when they wrote it. I’m basing this only on case law interpretations. If you don’t agree, take it up with the SC justices and the legal scholars that went on to pontificate upon their conclusions.
So, lead us through your analysis and logic of how these SC opinions do NOT protect ordinary citizens right to have arms in common use at the time, of a kind being military-style and or in use by militias as to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
“Limiting capacity to 6 shots would not be arms in common use nor support the efficiency of a militia encountering a force not bound by such capacity limits.”
–Comment by bugman
I love it how he reasons capacity cannot be limited to 6 shots because that is NOT “arms in common use.”
That would suggest you cannot limit capacity to 10,000 shots, because THAT is not “arms” in common use, either.
@ 84 Kristin – “The presentation, already on-line on city’s council agenda, explains that aggravated assaults and gun murders were up 20 percent in the city in 2012 compared to 2011.”
——————-
Why single out gun murders? Why not compare ALL murders year-over-year? Are gun murders somehow worse than knife, hands, etc? Why aggravated assaults? Why not compare year over year ALL violent crime? Wouldn’t that be a more complete measure of violent crime trend?
90% of all firearms commonly used today hold more than 6 shots. It’s not a hard concept to follow.
In other words, a gun limited to 6 shots is uncommon…just as a gun with a capacity of 10,000 shots.
And more importantly, if a person is to bring their own arms to a militia it is to be one of common use as to make the militia efficient in terms of facing their opponent. If the opponent has commonly used arms holding 15, 20, 30 rounds and the people, called upon, show up with their 6 shooters they are not going to be very efficient with their limited capacity arms.
But don’t take my word for it…those Supreme Court Justices are the ones that came to these conclusions. Take it up with them.
Call it what you like Symbols, it is not working for you.
At the time the founders crafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, there was no military, not even what we consider “law enforcement” today, that had superior weapons, so naturally that would not be a consideration. In the same way they did not mention an air force or space program, it was beyond their scope of experience. That has not been true since we DID start a standing army and improved and differentiated the armament. DUH!
For the record, I do not believe that I “alone hold the patent on the intention and meaning of the founding fathers”, Nor do I believe I have said that either. What you need to grasp, is that I am telling you, you don’t either.
“The proof is the results. Can I say it again?”
Take it to court. Oh what, it wouldn’t hold up?
IOW, you have no proof. Thank you for confirming it.
“gdad, re:” Firearms are one of the things burglars just LOVE to find.”
Not when they are pointed at them….”
As I said and you left out, it’s hard to point them at them when you’re not home.
“you dont know about it because you are one of them…LOLOLOLOLOLOL”
Umm, I’m not the one using “LOLOLOLOL” in my posts, pammala. Case closed.
#66 Wow, Sandi, so the guy in Charlottesville was even more of a narcissistic idiot than we knew. What a dolt.
Sandi, I am using the words of the Supreme Court Justices that have ruled on cases interpreting and referencing the 2A in 1939, 1972, 1980, and 1997. ALL of which had the full knowledge of law enforcement, military, military weapons, and semi-automatic weapons being in common use when they came to their conclusions. How do you reconcile that???
“The proof is the results”
Another one of your visions…
Why are the police exempt from your proposed ban? They are, after all, civilians, like you and me (police are NOT the military). If I don’t need a magazine that would hold more than 6 rounds to protect myself from criminals, why then would a police officer need one to protect himself from those exact same criminals?
Comment by Philip Van Cleave — February 1, 2013 @ 7:23 pm
Mr. Van Cleave, when on duty, I would argue that police officers are not civilians like you and I. Presumably, you do not, as a civilian, patrol a neighborhood or respond to the report of a robbery or investigate a domestic dispute. The scope of what we ask our police officers to do demands that we give them an advantage, superior firepower if you will. We also want them to protect themselves so they can make it home to their families, then back to work the next day.
The scope of your role as a civilian in your home and in your community does not demand that you have large capacity magazines. I think it reasonable for you to protect your home and family with six round magazines. I think it reasonable that you can hunt effectively with six round magazines. To argue otherwise advocates a kind of vigilantism that “stand your ground laws” have shown increases gun violence.
Symbols, it is also interesting to note that for over a hundred years the courts said the first part trumped the second part. That was the SC as well as lower courts. This individual right and ignoring the first part of the sentence is relatively new and though “decided” still contentious. Why do you think we argue it? That is what contentious means.
Oddly enough, it was conservatives who so often scream about “originalism” and “dead documents” who took over the NRA and changed the agenda to get the militia guarantee for everyone who wanted a gun by lobbying to ignore the original meaning of the amendment when it was ratified.
Have you NEVER mocked a liberal for contending the Constitution is a “living document”?
And even in finding that the amendment covered the individual right to self defense, ignoring any militia connection, it did NOT say any gun they wanted or any military arms they wanted, not even military “looking” weapons. It simply did not. It said we cannot ban guns, it did not, has not and IMO never will say, we cannot regulate, restrict and control them.
In fact by their pointed dodging (or cowardice) on the really pertinent questions, they tacitly acknowledged in my judgement, that we can ban some weapons.
Officer involved shootings average 10 shots fired…2 hits. That’s 20% accuracy from someone who is very well trained. A 6 shot revolver…1 hit.
Comment in part by GO84 at 6:44 p.m.
GO84, in the context of arming teachers or putting more gus in schools to stop the bad guys, the excerpt from your post deserves close examination.
As you note, shootings often occur within the 5-10 yard range, and police officer accuracy is around 20% – 2 of 10 shots hit the target. What becomes of the 8 misses? Translate such accuracy to a schoolhouse. Those 8 misses may injure or kill a student or a teacher. Is that acceptable? If we arm the school volunteers with pistols, the accuracy of which suffer substantially when the target is more than 10 yards away and moving, aren’t we engaged in magical thinking to imagine that our good guy with a pistol will stop the bad guy with a rifle, without collateral damage.
And pro gun advocates, who wins the battle from 20 yards – the determined teacher with a Glock or the deranged bad guy with an AR-15?
Mike o, the police are under the same obligation to investigate a suspected crime reported by me as they are to investigate a suspected crime reported by you.
From the SCOTUS in their 1939 opinion (word for word):
3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
Sandi, re” 9:42”
Thanks for the link… I forgot to mention the fact that if you are in the US illegally you don’t have to pay the penalty errr.. tax… err penalty.
gdad, re 10:18
Wow, you are correct, apologies abound.
I neglected to consider that most criminals call before breaking into someone’s home. How stupid of the potential victim not to call the police immediately after they receive notice from the criminal that he is coming.
What genius… you have singlehandedly solved the entire problem. Let’s make a law that says criminals must give 24 hour notice before committing a crime, and if they don’t… it means double secret probation…
That problem solved, you should move next to global warming…
mike o, sarcasm doesn’t work very well when it’s obvious you haven’t a clue. Burglars generally do make sure folks aren’t home before breaking in. They have various ways of doing that, including, yes, calling, knocking, and just plain casing the house. Knowing a house has guns makes it a more attractive target (the biggest burglary I know of in my neighborhood was a guy who lost a dozen or more guns. Yep, he wasn’t home). Sounds like you weren’t aware of any of that. Glad to help educate you a little.
“Burglars generally do make sure folks aren’t home before breaking in. They have various ways of doing that, including, yes, calling, knocking, and just plain casing the house. Knowing a house has guns makes it a more attractive target (the biggest burglary I know of in my neighborhood was a guy who lost a dozen or more guns. Yep, he wasn’t home). Sounds like you weren’t aware of any of that. Glad to help educate you a little.”
–Comment by gdad
Amazing. You mean people who own guns sometimes leave them at home when no one’s there?
I wonder if the NRA would permit a law that requires anyone who has a gun stolen from his home to report that theft to the police? After all, if it’s stolen, the gun (or guns) now are in criminal hands. And we know from what they say that the NRA is all against guns in the hands of criminal.
gdad and Dan, you are so right about burglaries and guns. Guns are prime booty because they are easily and quickly sold, and they are lucrative. That is not just my opinion, I saw it often in my career. All kidding aside, I think being able to track stolen guns would be one of the very positive byproducts of registration of all gun sales. These statistics could eventually lead us to policies that more effectively prevent legally owned guns from falling into the hands of criminals. Certainly, the NRA and VCDL would be in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
Well, folks, we’ve had gun lovers here snidely ask for an example of a shooting at a gun range or similar place. Never happens, they said. Careful what you wish for. And this guy wasn’t just some amateur, he was a sniper who bragged about his kills.
“A former Navy SEAL who said his 150-plus sniper kills prompted Iraqi insurgents to place a bounty on his head was fatally shot at a Texas gun range, authorities said.
Chris Kyle, 38, was one of two men killed Saturday afternoon in Glen Rose, southwest of Fort Worth, the Texas Department of Public Safety said. Chad Littlefield, 35, was also shot to death.”
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/justice/texas-sniper-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
If you decide you’re the most prolific sniper in American history, it might be a good idea to shut up about it.
Sad loss for a great American and protector of American people. Gdad seems to take pride in his death. I could only hope that you be allowed to address his family, face-to-face, to express your sick pride. These brave men/women give thier all so that we can do as we do…Some people just don`t appreciate anything. Gdad, you are one pathetic, little man. And I use the term lightly.
And, no sense in commenting…I certainly won`t be here.
Sure you will, applehead. You’re not going anywhere.
Too late, awood, I think you already commented.
Anyway, awood, I take no joy in this man’s death, but I’ve been told by gun nuts that this type of thing NEVER happens at gun ranges. Wrong again.
applewood, let’s see if Dave Hicks and/or John Wilburn sya “yawn” about this killing at the gun range of a highly trained sniper, because they explicitly said that a week ago when I mentioned all other gun deaths.
And by the way, you had nothing to say to them about their dismissive “yawn”, or Wilburn’s constant insistence that gun violence victims chose to be part of a “victim pool” Why Not, applewood, where was your disgust at their indifferent dismissal of other gun victims? Will YOU insist that Wilburn try to fit this latest gun death-at a gun range, no less-into the context of his callous victim pool theory? We’ll be watching to see if you do.