The US 2nd Amendment.....

[edteach]

In the context of the original language (which is also made clearer when reading correspondence between the Founders), "well-regulated" meant well trained and well disciplined. It had absolutely nothing to do with registration or permission. The idea was that private citizens would get out and train/drill, and be as, or nearly as proficient with their arms as any soldier.

Given that it seems how at least a significant proportion of gun owners are neither well-trained nor well-disciplined, I wonder if some sort of training requirement would pass Constitutional muster (and yeah, I've stated this before as well).

What data are you using to back up that assertion? There are tens of thousands of gun owners in America. I personally know of less than a hundred; all but a couple are both well disciplined and well trained.

I mean, I'm all for law-abiding, responsible folks owning guns, but I think an absolute free-for-all in gun purchasing is a bad idea. I've generally used car operation/ownership as the model of how far I think gun ownership/regulation should be managed. In some ways, it could simplify things. For example, let's take background checks. Right now, where applicable, background checks are pretty much done at the point of sale (if I understand correctly), i.e., at a gun shop. However, having a gun license akin to a driver's license would mean that you've already been pre-screened and therefore just showing said license would suffice. Also, much like certain crimes, bad behaviors, or health issues can result in your driver's license being revoked, the same could be said for a gun license.

Instead of just simply saying, "It ain't about what you think. The Founding Fathers had long considered their decision and knew what they were doing," I will tell you that a Concealed Carry permit amounts to what you are describing. In Indiana, at least, one must be fingerprinted (on file with the various alphabet-soup governmental agencies), pass a federal background check, be convicted of no felonies or violent crimes, and pay for the privilege. It costs a lot more than a driver's license. By your reasoning, showing your CC permit should get you same-day expedited service when buying additional guns. It's not that way. Every time you go to purchase another firearm, there is a follow-up check and a copy of the form 4473 goes into that person's electronic file. The government has a fairly decent record of every firearm purchase made through a gun show or shop.
Even if my driver's license were revoked, I could still go buy a car. No matter how many felonies, trips to jail for "certain crimes, bad behaviors, or health issues," a person can put down money and buy a car. One violent crime or one felony, one notation from a physician, and a person's right to own a gun is stripped away forever.

My Dr has not business knowing what guns I have or do not have. Its a back door gun ban or gun control

[Dreck]

Oh, and let's not get into the various abortion clinic bombings carried out by Christian groups in the United States.

10. There have been a total of 10 abortion clinic bombings. Of those ten, in only four cases was the bomber's identity known. Of the three which were carried out by adults, two were perpetrated by the same guy: Eric Robert Rudolph, who was said to have been involved with the group "Christian Identity," which is about as Christian as the KKK.

[edteach]

Oh, and let's not get into the various abortion clinic bombings carried out by Christian groups in the United States.

10. There have been a total of 10 abortion clinic bombings. Of those ten, in only four cases was the bomber's identity known. Of the three which were carried out by adults, two were perpetrated by the same guy: Eric Robert Rudolph, who was said to have been involved with the group "Christian Identity," which is about as Christian as the KKK.

Its always amazes me how the idiot left will hold up the very few Christian extremists who resort to violence and act as if it in any way is the equivalent of the tens of thousands of people the Muslims kill or torture. Its a joke. They should not be allowed to vote.

[Dreck]

Its always amazes me how the idiot left will hold up the very few Christian extremists who resort to violence and act as if it in any way is the equivalent of the tens of thousands of people the Muslims kill or torture. Its a joke. They should not be allowed to vote.

Did you not read what I wrote? Rudolph was neither a Christian nor a "Christian extremist." I couldn't find anything on John Yankowski, so I can't speak for his beliefs.

Voting in America is as much an inalienable right as is firearms ownership. Implicit in the concept of freedom is the danger that there will be those who are ignorant, uninformed, or irresponsible with their right.

[edteach]

Its always amazes me how the idiot left will hold up the very few Christian extremists who resort to violence and act as if it in any way is the equivalent of the tens of thousands of people the Muslims kill or torture. Its a joke. They should not be allowed to vote.

Did you not read what I wrote? Rudolph was neither a Christian nor a "Christian extremist." I couldn't find anything on John Yankowski, so I can't speak for his beliefs.

Voting in America is as much an inalienable right as is firearms ownership. Implicit in the concept of freedom is the danger that there will be those who are ignorant, uninformed, or irresponsible with their right.

I though I was agreeing with you.

[Dragonmaster Lou]

Its always amazes me how the idiot left will hold up the very few Christian extremists who resort to violence and act as if it in any way is the equivalent of the tens of thousands of people the Muslims kill or torture. Its a joke. They should not be allowed to vote.

It always amazes me how much bigotry exists on the idiot right. Such bigotry is fundamentally un-American. It's a joke. They should not be allowed to vote.

Also, showing a video from someone representing a hate group as categorized by the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn't bolster your argument either.

[Dragonmaster Lou]

Instead of just simply saying, "It ain't about what you think. The Founding Fathers had long considered their decision and knew what they were doing," I will tell you that a Concealed Carry permit amounts to what you are describing. In Indiana, at least, one must be fingerprinted (on file with the various alphabet-soup governmental agencies), pass a federal background check, be convicted of no felonies or violent crimes, and pay for the privilege. It costs a lot more than a driver's license. By your reasoning, showing your CC permit should get you same-day expedited service when buying additional guns. It's not that way. Every time you go to purchase another firearm, there is a follow-up check and a copy of the form 4473 goes into that person's electronic file. The government has a fairly decent record of every firearm purchase made through a gun show or shop.
Even if my driver's license were revoked, I could still go buy a car. No matter how many felonies, trips to jail for "certain crimes, bad behaviors, or health issues," a person can put down money and buy a car. One violent crime or one felony, one notation from a physician, and a person's right to own a gun is stripped away forever.

You know what, I'd be fine with a CC permit giving you expedited service with buying additional guns. As far as in concerned, having a valid, non-revoked CC permit shows that you are a law-abiding, responsible citizen. Of course, the way you described it may be a bit more extreme than what I envisioned, but again, I'd be okay with that. Maybe a lower bar for non-CC, but CC should be fine for non-CC purchases as well.

As far as buying a car, last I checked, you need a valid license to buy a car from a legitimate dealer. At least, I've never come across a legitimate dealer that didn't ask for my license before allowing me to buy a car. Now, if you were to buy a car from the guy down the street, sure, you could do that without a license if that guy didn't check and only wanted your cash. Of course, the same applies if you want to a buy a gun from the guy down the street.

[edteach]

Its always amazes me how the idiot left will hold up the very few Christian extremists who resort to violence and act as if it in any way is the equivalent of the tens of thousands of people the Muslims kill or torture. Its a joke. They should not be allowed to vote.

It always amazes me how much bigotry exists on the idiot right. Such bigotry is fundamentally un-American. It's a joke. They should not be allowed to vote.

Also, showing a video from someone representing a hate group as categorized by the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn't bolster your argument either.

Keep telling your self that as the bodies pile up. I now its BS. What is un-American is Islam, Muslims hate America as does the left a bunch of flag burning tofu licking asshats.

[edteach]

Obama is a Muslim sympathizer. That is a fact. I don't know that he is a Muslim but by his acts he is a sympathizer. He took the US on the big apology tour telling the world he was sorry for the actions of the USA. Well he does not apologize for me and he is a failed president. The last shreek of the left wing asshats is racism. When they can not win the argument they yell your a bigot. Look at where France, Germany and England is at after letting in Muslims. No go zones in England where the police are afraid to patrol, 70 percent of Muslims poled want Sharia law. Bombings and shootings in France where its very hard to get a gun and it did not stop the killing instincts of Islam. Rape games and groping by Muslims of German women due to the fact that they feel if a woman wears cloths as they do in the west they are asking for it. Where are the liberal feminists? When Muslims throw off gays from buildings and then as the Imam in Orlando has said that its a mercy to the gay to kill them, where is the liberal asshat? As Muslims cut the heads of non believers, drown , set them on fire while alive where is the liberal asshat? As Muslims preach that women are second class citizens and its justified to beat, cut the private parts off in a female circumcision where is the liberal asshat? They are whining about Trump for wanting to build a wall or stop Muslims from coming in from undocumented areas. Liberals have been so indoctrinated in hate America first they can not think for them self without some asshat liberal telling them what to think and give them their talking points.

[Dreck]

Instead of just simply saying, "It ain't about what you think. The Founding Fathers had long considered their decision and knew what they were doing," I will tell you that a Concealed Carry permit amounts to what you are describing. In Indiana, at least, one must be fingerprinted (on file with the various alphabet-soup governmental agencies), pass a federal background check, be convicted of no felonies or violent crimes, and pay for the privilege. It costs a lot more than a driver's license. By your reasoning, showing your CC permit should get you same-day expedited service when buying additional guns. It's not that way. Every time you go to purchase another firearm, there is a follow-up check and a copy of the form 4473 goes into that person's electronic file. The government has a fairly decent record of every firearm purchase made through a gun show or shop.
Even if my driver's license were revoked, I could still go buy a car. No matter how many felonies, trips to jail for "certain crimes, bad behaviors, or health issues," a person can put down money and buy a car. One violent crime or one felony, one notation from a physician, and a person's right to own a gun is stripped away forever.

You know what, I'd be fine with a CC permit giving you expedited service with buying additional guns. As far as in concerned, having a valid, non-revoked CC permit shows that you are a law-abiding, responsible citizen. Of course, the way you described it may be a bit more extreme than what I envisioned, but again, I'd be okay with that. Maybe a lower bar for non-CC, but CC should be fine for non-CC purchases as well.

That's the way it is, whether we're Ok with it or not. Back in my childhood, you could mail-order a rifle or shotgun from the Sear catalogue. Guns were a *lot* easier to get in hand back then. Oddly enough, we didn't have "mass shootings" like we do nowadays with all these "common sense" gun laws. I've never been convicted of anything worse than a misdemeanor speeding ticket. You'd think with an exemplary record that such a person should be able to lay cash on the counter and buy any gun. Not so. The government still has the option of putting a person on their 3-day waiting list, and doesn't have to give any reason other than they want that person to wait. This has happened to me every single time I've bought a gun.

As far as buying a car, last I checked, you need a valid license to buy a car from a legitimate dealer. At least, I've never come across a legitimate dealer that didn't ask for my license before allowing me to buy a car. Now, if you were to buy a car from the guy down the street, sure, you could do that without a license if that guy didn't check and only wanted your cash. Of course, the same applies if you want to a buy a gun from the guy down the street.

Sure. How do you think most criminals (i.e. known, repeat lawbreakers) get theirs? Laws and "improved" background checks won't stop criminals from breaking the law: even stealing and selling stolen goods to others. In some states, person-to-person sales are illegal; at least without using a FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee) as a middleman to take a portion of the sales, run a background check, and file a 4473.

[Dreck]

O...When they can not win the argument they yell your a bigot...70 percent of Muslims poled want Sharia law...they feel if a woman wears cloths as they do in the west they are asking for it...

Dude. Please stop. Your diatribe has gone beyond the ragged edges of what could possibly be construed as argumentation. I understand your passion for this topic, but save it for Arfcom, WarriorTalk, or SOCNET.

[HughC]

Did the Founders envisage US citizens using high powered semi-automatic weapons to kill children and unarmed adults? Did they envisage the cultural, racial and religious diversity that now exists? The US today is a very different US to the one that produced your Constitution. The notion of an armed population to protect their rights then is very different now in light of this diversity. I think the 2nd A. should be looked at in terms of the US today and judged on it's suitability. General gun control will never be that serious in the US in the foreseeable future but there is room to discuss the place of some types of weapons in the community, it's a matter of balancing individual rights with community rights.

[dneal]

Did the Founders envisage US citizens using high powered semi-automatic weapons to kill children and unarmed adults? Did they envisage the cultural, racial and religious diversity that now exists? The US today is a very different US to the one that produced your Constitution. The notion of an armed population to protect their rights then is very different now in light of this diversity. I think the 2nd A. should be looked at in terms of the US today and judged on it's suitability. General gun control will never be that serious in the US in the foreseeable future but there is room to discuss the place of some types of weapons in the community, it's a matter of balancing individual rights with community rights.

As noted way back in the first few pages, they did anticipate a potential need for changes due to circumstances they could not foresee, and therefore included a process to amend the Constitution.

Why do you suppose that an amendment hasn't been proposed, adopted and ratified? Also stated much earlier: It does not have the support of the American people outside of a very vocal minority with a complicit media.

It really is that simple, although we've got 15 pages of rationalization to the contrary.

[dneal]

Its always amazes me how the idiot left will hold up the very few Christian extremists who resort to violence and act as if it in any way is the equivalent of the tens of thousands of people the Muslims kill or torture. Its a joke. They should not be allowed to vote.

It always amazes me how much bigotry exists on the idiot right. Such bigotry is fundamentally un-American. It's a joke. They should not be allowed to vote.

Also, showing a video from someone representing a hate group as categorized by the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn't bolster your argument either.

Both sides are full of idiots. Pick your evil and you pick your party. If you think smoking one plant is ok, and another should be banned; you can probably figure out which idiot you are by whether the plant is marijuana or tobacco.

[HughC]

Did the Founders envisage US citizens using high powered semi-automatic weapons to kill children and unarmed adults? Did they envisage the cultural, racial and religious diversity that now exists? The US today is a very different US to the one that produced your Constitution. The notion of an armed population to protect their rights then is very different now in light of this diversity. I think the 2nd A. should be looked at in terms of the US today and judged on it's suitability. General gun control will never be that serious in the US in the foreseeable future but there is room to discuss the place of some types of weapons in the community, it's a matter of balancing individual rights with community rights.

As noted way back in the first few pages, they did anticipate a potential need for changes due to circumstances they could not foresee, and therefore included a process to amend the Constitution.

Why do you suppose that an amendment hasn't been proposed, adopted and ratified? Also stated much earlier: It does not have the support of the American people outside of a very vocal minority with a complicit media.

It really is that simple, although we've got 15 pages of rationalization to the contrary.

Constitutions are difficult to change. The constitution didn't prevent racism being practiced. Reducing risks is a good idea, if it can be done with minimal impact then it's a worthwhile investment. Few people have a need for ,say, an AR-15 but a lot like owning one. As far as I can see most of the gun debate is more hype than fact from both sides, when you think about it it's difficult to justify owning an AR 15 ( actually have a purpose that a different gun can't perform adequately) for most people.

[dneal]

Did the Founders envisage US citizens using high powered semi-automatic weapons to kill children and unarmed adults? Did they envisage the cultural, racial and religious diversity that now exists? The US today is a very different US to the one that produced your Constitution. The notion of an armed population to protect their rights then is very different now in light of this diversity. I think the 2nd A. should be looked at in terms of the US today and judged on it's suitability. General gun control will never be that serious in the US in the foreseeable future but there is room to discuss the place of some types of weapons in the community, it's a matter of balancing individual rights with community rights.

As noted way back in the first few pages, they did anticipate a potential need for changes due to circumstances they could not foresee, and therefore included a process to amend the Constitution.

Why do you suppose that an amendment hasn't been proposed, adopted and ratified? Also stated much earlier: It does not have the support of the American people outside of a very vocal minority with a complicit media.

It really is that simple, although we've got 15 pages of rationalization to the contrary.

Constitutions are difficult to change. The constitution didn't prevent racism being practiced. Reducing risks is a good idea, if it can be done with minimal impact then it's a worthwhile investment. Few people have a need for ,say, an AR-15 but a lot like owning one. As far as I can see most of the gun debate is more hype than fact from both sides, when you think about it it's difficult to justify owning an AR 15 ( actually have a purpose that a different gun can't perform adequately) for most people.

It's not difficult to change when the proposal truly has the support of the people. The bar is set high to prevent the "tyranny of the majority". RE: Racism. That's a mindset, and laws or constitutions don't change it. All races practice it.

What is it about the AR-15 that fascinates the anti-gun side? You can buy a Ruger Ranch Rifle that fires the exact same round, and it has interchangeable magazines. You don't see anyone wanting to ban those, probably because it's not so scary looking... The .223/5.56mm is not even a particularly powerful cartridge, and many States do not allow deer hunting with it for that reason. It has a 60 grain bullet and a muzzle velocity of around 2900 fps. A .308 is a very popular hunting (and target) round, and has ~150 grain bullet with similar velocity - and a much more lethal round.

[HughC]

I'd put the mini 14 in the same category. As has been shown they have plenty of killing power at close range. If a certain type of weapon features regularly in mass shootings it's logical that it's availability be examined. The question remains is the right of the community to have access restricted to certain weapons in the interest of public safety a legitimate right or does the individual right take precedence ? I haven't seen any argument that convinces me there's a need for semi automatic weapons in the general population. Clearly there are people who will have a need and should have access.

[dneal]

I'd put the mini 14 in the same category. As has been shown they have plenty of killing power at close range. If a certain type of weapon features regularly in mass shootings it's logical that it's availability be examined. The question remains is the right of the community to have access restricted to certain weapons in the interest of public safety a legitimate right or does the individual right take precedence ? I haven't seen any argument that convinces me there's a need for semi automatic weapons in the general population. Clearly there are people who will have a need and should have access.

The question does not remain, you just don't like the answer and ignore the fact that AR-15's are actually uncommon in "mass shootings". Pressure cookers have been shown to have plenty of killing power at close range, and there's no "need" for them. Is that a justification for eliminating them?

As posted several pages back, the right of the individual is the most sacred in the American context. The core of the Constitution is limitation placed on government and rights reserved to the individual. The first ten amendments are a the bill of rights, not the bill of needs.

The reason you haven't seen an argument that convinces you is probably because you haven't looked for one, and dismiss out of hand any that would (i.e.: John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime", which might explain why the U.S. crime rate is at an historic low).

[duckmcf]

As noted way back in the first few pages, they did anticipate a potential need for changes due to circumstances they could not foresee, and therefore included a process to amend the Constitution.

Why do you suppose that an amendment hasn't been proposed, adopted and ratified? Also stated much earlier: It does not have the support of the American people outside of a very vocal minority with a complicit media.

It really is that simple, although we've got 15 pages of rationalization to the contrary.

I'd have to agree, the process exists and so if there was strong grass roots support to repeal the 2nd, it would happen. Ultimately the US politicians need to get elected and re-elected, and like politicians all around the world, they will do what it takes to get voted back in.

I think the disconnect in all this, for me at least, is that I look at the US and it's people and you seem very similar to other English speaking countries around the world, but actually we are very different peoples. I think that, as an Australian, it's hard for me to understand, and relate to, how deep seeded the fear and suspicion of tyrannical big government is for US people. The depth of feeling is there in black and white in the wording of the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps it's because your freedom from the British came from bitter conflict, while ours, here in Oz at least, came from the ballet box when we voted to became an independent country in 1901. I mean, the British burnt down your White House, that'd be hard to ignore.

Anyway, perhaps over time enough of the US population will decide that the 2nd needs to be revised, or perhaps not. Either way, it's your collective call.

As an aside, I heard that post Orlando, Smith & Wesson's share price went up 9%.......roll on page 16

Cheers
Noel

[edteach]

There is also the fact that a in close quarters can do a lot of damage with 00 buck. The list is endless on how you can kill large amounts of people if that is your desire. If stupid people think that banning guns makes them safe well they are stupid. Vetting Muslims who want to come in to the point of knowing that they will not commit and act of Treason and locking down our boarders is a good start. I am not foolish enough to think this will make us safe. Nothing is full proof but its a good start. Releasing the hounds I.E FBI and other agencies to infiltrate suspected Mosques and Muslim Organizations to see what they are up to is another. We need an all of the above and the limp dick attitude of the politically correct liberal idiots will get them self and us killed.