Arizona Blue Dog Dem shot at public event

[Weird Harold]

First, don't buy semiautomatic weapons under the fig leaf that you're going squirrel hunting some day.

Odd. The only semiautomatic weapon I own happens to be a remington semiautomatic rifle in .22 LR that is the perfect weapon for hunting squirrels and would be pretty much useless for anything else -- except for target practice which is the reason I own it.

 

[sr71plt]

Odd. The only semiautomatic weapon I own happens to be a remington semiautomatic rifle in .22 LR that is the perfect weapon for hunting squirrels and would be pretty much useless for anything else -- except for target practice which is the reason I own it.

And you better believe we have our eye on you too.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Odd. The only semiautomatic weapon I own happens to be a remington semiautomatic rifle in .22 LR that is the perfect weapon for hunting squirrels and would be pretty much useless for anything else -- except for target practice which is the reason I own it.

I don't konw for sure, but I would be willing to bet more civilians are killed with .22's than any other caliber.

 

[stephen55]

Jared Lee Loughner was not a member of a well regulated militia.

Odd. The only semiautomatic weapon I own happens to be a remington semiautomatic rifle in .22 LR that is the perfect weapon for hunting squirrels and would be pretty much useless for anything else -- except for target practice which is the reason I own it.

It's a rifle. It's a hunting rifle or a target rifle. So call it a rifle.

BTW, I've got a Ruger 10-22 and it's a dandy grouse rifle. I prefer going after grouse with my 20 gauge over and under, but the 10-22 will do in a pinch.

But let's get back to the real topic, which is what kind of firearms should be in civilian hands. The Second Amendment was written at a time when firearms were single shot, muzzle loading rifles and pistols, and having recently fought a war of Independence, a well regulated militia was considered a good idea.

Somewhere along the way, the "well regulated" part was lost. Police, the military and the national Guard are well regulated. They need fully automatic, high capacity, high powered weapons. The rest of us should make do with hunting rifles, duck guns, .22's and target pistols.

Allowing civilians to acquire 9mm Glocks (with 30 round magazines), AK-47's, AR-15's and the rest of the firearms designed only to kill people (as opposed to deer and grouse)...is insane.

Yes, crazy people will do crazy things. But why make it so damned easy? Jared Lee Loughner was not a member of a well regulated militia.

 

[sr71plt]

It's a rifle. It's a hunting rifle or a target rifle. So call it a rifle.

BTW, I've got a Ruger 10-22 and it's a dandy grouse rifle. I prefer going after grouse with my 20 gauge over and under, but the 10-22 will do in a pinch.

But let's get back to the real topic, which is what kind of firearms should be in civilian hands. The Second Amendment was written at a time when firearms were single shot, muzzle loading rifles and pistols, and having recently fought a war of Independence, a well regulated militia was considered a good idea.

Somewhere along the way, the "well regulated" part was lost. Police, the military and the national Guard are well regulated. They need fully automatic, high capacity, high powered weapons. The rest of us should make do with hunting rifles, duck guns, .22's and target pistols.

Allowing civilians to acquire 9mm Glocks (with 30 round magazines), AK-47's, AR-15's and the rest of the firearms designed only to kill people (as opposed to deer and grouse)...is insane.

Yes, crazy people will do crazy things. But why make it so damned easy? Jared Lee Loughner was not a member of a well regulated militia.

Wow. That was really (I mean really) an intelligent look at the issue. Thanks.

 

[Weird Harold]

I don't konw for sure, but I would be willing to bet more civilians are killed with .22's than any other caliber.

Depends on the time frame you cover. .22 rimfire guns and ammunition of all types have been around a lot longer than almost any other projectile size; if you throw in the centerfire .22 calibers -- like NATO 5.56/223 Remington -- there have been a lot of "22s" in use for a very long time.

OTOH, if we just consider the last year or last decade -- or even the last half of the 20th century -- I would expect that more civilians are killed by projectile measuring .355 to .357 inches in diameter; 9mm parabellum and the various incarnations of "38" caliber for revolver and pistol.

The statistics to prove both of right and prove both of us wrong are out on the internet somewhere; I can't be bothered to search for them and sort out the real studies from the bogus claims. It doesn't really matter which killed more, only that even the most rabid anti-gun nuts usually don't consider .22LR to be a "real gun" even if it is a dreaded semiautomatic with a 14 round magazine built into it.

I'd also be willing to bet that the "firearm" that has injured more children in the last 50-60 years is the Red Ryder BB gun -- but it's only a toy, so that's OK.

This is a neat little BB gun that is also legally just a toy but will kill you and all your friends just as dead as a 9mm pistol with extended magazine -- and it can fire for four minutes non-stop.

 

[Weird Harold]

But let's get back to the real topic, which is what kind of firearms should be in civilian hands. The Second Amendment was written at a time when firearms were single shot, muzzle loading rifles and pistols, and having recently fought a war of Independence, a well regulated militia was considered a good idea.

"Well-regulated" in contemporary documents to the Bill of Rights is used as a synonym for well-equipped.

The "Militia" was all able bodied citizens (assumed to be exclusively male) availble to be called out for fire fighting, sherrif's posses, search and rescue, and repelling hostile forces such as bandits and indians -- pretty much what a Neighborhood watch consists of today.

The muzzle loading single shot firearms and pistols in civilian hands contemporary with the bill of rights were, the equal of, superior to, or the same as the premier military firearm in the world at that time, The English "Brown Bess" smoothebore musket.

If you want to argue the intent of the authors of the second ammendment, we should be talking about the swiss model where every able-bodied male is required to keep and maintain in his residence (and maintian proficiency with) a military issue combat rifle.

By the intent of the authors of the second amendment, the people were to be armed the equal of or superior to standard military issue -- today that means at least three-round burst modes if not full automatic.

Are you sure you want the authors' intent to be the guide to reasonable gun control?

 

[colddiesel]

"Well-regulated" in contemporary documents to the Bill of Rights is used as a synonym for well-equipped.

The "Militia" was all able bodied citizens (assumed to be exclusively male) availble to be called out for fire fighting, sherrif's posses, search and rescue, and repelling hostile forces such as bandits and indians -- pretty much what a Neighborhood watch consists of today.

The muzzle loading single shot firearms and pistols in civilian hands contemporary with the bill of rights were, the equal of, superior to, or the same as the premier military firearm in the world at that time, The English "Brown Bess" smoothebore musket.

If you want to argue the intent of the authors of the second ammendment, we should be talking about the swiss model where every able-bodied male is required to keep and maintain in his residence (and maintian proficiency with) a military issue combat rifle.

By the intent of the authors of the second amendment, the people were to be armed the equal of or superior to standard military issue -- today that means at least three-round burst modes if not full automatic.

Are you sure you want the authors' intent to be the guide to reasonable gun control?

Very rare Harold, for you to write total hogwash... but this is it.

 

[JackLuis]

Very rare Harold, for you to write total hogwash... but this is it.

Actually this is the very point of the 2nd Amendment. It is not popular or pleasant to think that our government will ever be so corrupt as to make it necessary, but it was included to provide a balance to the power of the state.

One of the things that people ignore is the responsibility of owning arms. It is not a privilege, but a responsibility.

Our Arizona shooter must take the responsibility for his actions. Our society must take responsibility for enforcing the law.

 

[sr71plt]

No, what some of you are ignoring is that the world of the Constitution was then and this is now. Some folks have grown up; others can't seem to make the grade. This isn't the wild and wooly frontier anymore.

 

[JackLuis]

No, what some of you are ignoring is that the world of the Constitution was then and this is now. Some folks have grown up; others can't seem to make the grade. This isn't the wild and wooly frontier anymore.

So don't just stand around complaining, get the Constitution changed.

And adjust the first amendment too, so that the government can prostitute hate speech.

 

[Bebeslut]

so that the government can prostitute hate speech.

Hey, buddy -- in de back alley, here.
Ya want a liddle hate speech? Cheap!

 

[amicus]

This is from a wikipedia article with an interesting preamble concerning bearing arms as a matter of rights not to be infringed upon by government.

Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of RightsJames Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[69]

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[70] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[71] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[72]

The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on in late August of 1789. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[73]

By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States."[74] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[75]

The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated.[76] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":

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.[77]

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

~~~

The evolution of the right to bear arms in both English and American law, was clearly to enable the individual to own and bear arms without subjecting oneself to government military service.

Civilians in dictatorial countries are always disarmed because the government fears them. Americans have to right to bear arms to protect their individual rights and it proper and necessary to the security of the individual that he have that right, unfettered and uninfringed upon.

When government begins to usurp the rights of the people, the people must have a means of resistance. I would have an M1A1 Abrams, but the neighbor lady would just hang her laundry on the 105mm barrel....

your amicableness... edited to add, for my slow witted progressive admirers, what that all means is that owning arms is not subjecting oneself to militia, which means, the right to bear arms is clear and unsullied and not attached to military service....go buy one, learn to use it, you may need it when they come for your Vibrators...heh...

 

[colddiesel]

This is from a wikipedia article with an interesting preamble concerning bearing arms as a matter of rights not to be infringed upon by government.
~~~

The evolution of the right to bear arms in both English and American law, was clearly to enable the individual to own and bear arms without subjecting oneself to government military service.

1 For the sake of clarity Amicus would you accept that there is any proper limitation at all on the type of weapon and individual may acquire.

2 Forgive my ignorance but under your constitution is there any constitutional restriction on people who may be insane but have no criminal record.

PS. Usually I muck around in this forum but I'm seriously intrigued by this issue.

 

[sr71plt]

So don't just stand around complaining, get the Constitution changed.

And adjust the first amendment too, so that the government can prostitute hate speech.

Oh, I always vote in that direction, given the chance. What else would you suggest? Buy a gun and start shooting?

 

[Huckleman2000]

No, what some of you are ignoring is that the world of the Constitution was then and this is now. Some folks have grown up; others can't seem to make the grade. This isn't the wild and wooly frontier anymore.

Seriously - I see these gun nuts walking around with guns in their holsters, and I think of my three-year-old son who wanted to walk around dressed like a ghostbuster, complete with proton pack.

What adult needs to carry a gun around in public?

 

[sr71plt]

What adult needs to carry a gun around in public?

No one but the policeman trying to protect people from the nut who is doing so.

 

[JackLuis]

Oh, I always vote in that direction, given the chance. What else would you suggest? Buy a gun and start shooting?

No I suggest that if you own a gun, you recognize the responsibility of doing so. Know how to use it, so as to satisfy you obligation to promote the common defense of the nation and yourself and follow the law so as not to be a threat to others.

If you "start shooting", make sure you know what your shooting for, because if you are wrong, the consequences of your act may be the termination of your life.

I belong to the NRA, because my rifle club requires it, to insure I follow the rules of competition. I don't agree with everything they say.

IMHO the shooter in this case should find out what a 9mm can do to his brain, it would be a lesson to him and would be ultimately less of a drain on our society.
----
Hate speech is always cheap, but never worth the price.

 

[R. Richard]

Initially the weapon of choice on the American frontier was the smooth bore musket or trade gun, built in the thousands in factories in England and France and shipped to the Colonies for purchase. Gradually, however, a group of solitary frontiersmen, Indian fighters, and professional market hunters began using less muskets and more and more rifles due to their longer effective range. While a smooth bore musket had an effective range of less than 100 yards (usually quite a bit less,) a good rifleman could hit a man-sized target out to three hundred yards or more.

In 1778, at the siege of Boonesborough, Kentucky, one of the officers of the combined British/Shawnee assault force was hiding behind a tree. He stuck his head out from behind the tree and was instantly killed by a rifle ball to the forehead, fired by Daniel Boone, who was known for always firing the same fixed measure load of blackpowder in his rifle. The shot was later confirmed by witnesses on both sides and the distance measured at 250 yards. (Boone was a market hunter and at least one of the best shots on the frontier.)

The Kentucky long rifle wasn't equivalent to a smooth bore musket, it was a hell of a lot better. The Kentucky long rifle was used to take game that the frontiersman needed to feed his family. The smooth bore musket was mainly used, in the Americas, by Hessiabn mercenaries. For some, unknown, reason the British didn't want the Hessians to have weapons that could kill a British officer from very long range.

 

[sr71plt]

No I suggest that if you own a gun, you recognize the responsibility of doing so. Know how to use it, so as to satisfy you obligation to promote the common defense of the nation and yourself and follow the law so as not to be a threat to others.

Oh, bullshit. I went through the standard full-weapons training of an intelligence agent at The Farm. Save me the juvenile games. You are a mere baby in discussion on the defense of the nation. Just playing "big boy" and being able to easily buy a gun is your version of a junior superhero badge.

 

[JackLuis]

Oh, bullshit. I went through the standard full-weapons training of an intelligence agent at The Farm. Save me the juvenile games. You are a mere baby in discussion on the defense of the nation. Just playing "big boy" and being able to easily buy a gun is your version of a junior superhero badge.

Then you know the limits of guns. If you were at the 'farm', you got to see their effects and perhaps understand their limitations.

I do think that you allow yourself to get a little pompous when you are angry too. We disagree, is that a reason to try to minimize my opinion? Aren't you just allowing your temper to over ride what you know is right? You have not a fucking clue to what my opinions are or how they were formed.

I like being called baby though, say it again.

 

[Weird Harold]

Very rare Harold, for you to write total hogwash... but this is it.

How so?

Are you saying that the authors of the second amendment didn't want the people -- inividually and collectively -- "well-regulated" consistent with the then current standard military of "regulation" according to the contemporary usuage of that word?

Or do you just disagree with the Supreme Court that the right to bear arms is an individual right -- as it declared in overtirning Washington D.C.'s gun ban?

 

[Huckleman2000]

How the hell does a thread about an assassination attempt morph into yet another gun-fetish litany?

You guys are worse at threadjacking than the lesbians flirting with the straight girls.

 

[JackLuis]

How the hell does a thread about an assassination attempt morph into yet another gun-fetish litany?

You guys are worse at threadjacking than the lesbians flirting with the straight girls.

You're right. We should be writing smut, er erotica. Bye the Bye, do you know any straight girls?

 

[Weird Harold]

Actually this is the very point of the 2nd Amendment. It is not popular or pleasant to think that our government will ever be so corrupt as to make it necessary, but it was included to provide a balance to the power of the state.

IMHO, the ability to stand up to our own government is secondary to the need for sufficient capability to take on foreign armies. There being no standing army at that time, the militia was the only defense the country had and the militia needed to be equipped at least as well as any army they might oppose. it was only incidently sufficient to oppose any army the US government might raise to for the militia to oppose.

Anyone arguing that the authors of the second amendment would choose to limit the arms civilians could own to non-military designs just doesn't understand what "militia" and "arms" meant to the authors. They wanted citizens armed as well as any invading army could be expected to be.

I'm not sure exactly when the practice became common, (whether before or after the bill of rights) but there is a reason why most old towns and villages in eastern states have a cannon or two on the vilage green and fired them every fourth of July -- they were usually "owned in common" by the people of the town (the militia) or owned personally by the Colonel of Militia who raised, trained and financed the town's organized militia. They were fired at least once a year to demonstrate that they functioned properly -- usually in conjunction with the fireworks for the Fourth of July celebrations.

The very idea that the founders and authors of the bill of rights would object to military grade firearms in private hands is laughable.