It takes only 5 people to end gun violence in America.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by glatt

It seems to me that if you are making the argument
that guns are only protected under the Constitution for militias, then you need to allow machine guns.
After all, they are military weapons for a military organization.
So if we want to restrict guns that look like machine guns,
what we need to do is to change the interpretation of the Constitution
so that the Constitutional purpose of guns is not to arm militias.<snip>

Ummmm.... there are two issues here.

What was the wording of the original "2nd Amendment ratified by the States ?
To wit:

CONGRESS of the UNITED STATES
Begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday,
the
Fourth of March, One Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-nine.

Article the first [Not Ratified]
Article the second [Not Ratified - until 1992, as the 27th Amendment]
Article the third [1st Amendment]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Article the fourth [2nd Amendment]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The laws passed by Congress after the States ratified
the Constitution and Bill of Rights are worded differently.

A great deal is made of the Federalist Papers regarding the intentions of our Forefathers.
John Jay's writings there on the 2nd Amendment (before ratification)
specifically discuss the need to give up some "rights"
in order to gain other benefits gained from the new federal government.


The "militia" of our Forefathers is not one of individuals with guns,
but of independent (non-federal) communities formally calling up individuals,
even to the point of a draft to meet quotas, to defend against foreign forces.
---

Second, our Forefathers could not have envisioned the machine gun,
or much of any gun we now call an "automatic firearm",
which came 50 to 100 years after ratification...

from Wikipedia:
The History of the Firearm

<snip>
A repeating firearm or "repeater" is a firearm that holds more
than one cartridge and can be fired more than once between chargings.
Springfield rifles were among the very first breech-loading rifles, starting production in 1865.

The most well-known repeater is the American Springfield Model 1892-99

The earliest repeating firearms were revolvers (revolving rifles were sometimes called "turret guns")
and were "single action" in that they could only be fired one way: by manually cocking the mechanism
(drawing the hammer to the rear with the thumb) before each shot.
This design dates from 1836, with the introduction of the Colt Paterson,

The first successful rapid-fire firearm is the Gatling Gun, invented by Richard Gatling
and fielded by the Union forces during the American Civil War in the 1860s.

Thus, it only takes 5 USSC Justices to re-interpret "well regulated" to end gun violence.

[glatt]

Yeah, that's all interesting, but the Supreme Court already removed the whole militia part of the 2nd amendment. So a new Supreme Court would have to change that ruling to bring militias back into it, and then go on to do what you suggest.

The Wikipedia summary of the Supreme Court's holding in D.C. v. Heller:

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.

[Lamplighter]

Exactly.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Oh lord, here we go again.

So the head researcher for justfacts is a 'creation scientist'? While this might give him a different viewpoint, sort of like inviting Jeffrey Dahmer to research a book on food safety, it argues against unbiased collection and interpretation of facts.

Great. Apart from your highly effective Ad Hominem attack what facts did you find, pertaining to gun laws, that were erroneous?

Nearly everyone has personal political views, especially those involved in policy research and journalism. In the interest of transparency, we think it is incumbent upon such individuals to straightforwardly disclose this information, despite the fact that they often fail to do so and claim that this lack of disclosure is a mark of objectivity. As is the case with any thoughtful group of people, the staff and board members of Just Facts have some varying opinions, but we overwhelmingly subscribe to these defining principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In general parlance, we are conservative/libertarian in our viewpoints, but unlike many organizations and media outlets, this does not mean we give preference to facts that coincide with our opinions. Quite the contrary, we are committed to objectivity and will report any fact that meets the criteria below, regardless of the implications.

Standards Of Credibility

* Facts: Every effort is made to keep the facts as plain as possible and to use language that is clear and precise.

* Excluded Facts: The only "facts" excluded are those that are rendered pointless by other facts and those that do not meet the Standards of Credibility listed here.

* Accuracy: Just Facts does not use sources uncritically, and before citing them, we often perform investigative and feasibility studies to test their veracity. Just Facts is also committed to documenting the facts we publish far more thoroughly than standard academic practice requires. Hence, all of our research since 2001 contains footnotes with direct quotes and/or raw data from the cited sources. This allows readers to quickly verify that we accurately represent these citations. Our goal for every fact is 100% transparency.

* Estimates and Minor Discrepancies: These are handled by giving preferentiality to figures that are contrary to our viewpoints and by using the most cautious plausible interpretations of such data.

* Conclusions and Quotes: Every effort is made to keep quotes within context. Conclusions and quotes made by people with vested interests are excluded except to point out inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

* Incomplete Data: "Facts" that do not account for vital contextual information are not included in our research. Example: A study determines that under a certain proposal, "taxes for the average family will increase by $700 over the next four years." This would be excluded if the study did not account for inflation, which may add $300 to the average tax bill regardless of whether or not the proposal is adopted.

* Balance: Our goal is comprehensive accuracy, not balance. Press outlets often provide quotes from people on opposing sides of an issue. This, in our opinion, is a charade. First, there is nothing to prevent a news source from quoting the most compelling argument from one side and the weakest from the other. Second, such soundbites are often loaded with rhetoric and misinformation. Our purpose is to publish verifiable facts regardless of the views they support, not to circulate half-truths and propaganda.

Our Challenge

While today's news media can be entertaining, ask yourself, "Does it give me the information I need to make quality decisions in my life and in the voting booth?"

Make the effort to gather credible facts and ponder their implications. Your views and your vote impact not only your life, but the people around you. Refuse to allow misinformation and bias to restrict or manipulate your thinking. Form your own opinions based upon serious thought and broad knowledge.

Despite their wacky creationist viewpoints, they seem more open minded than you.

An example of a "fact" that didn't meet their standards of credibility:

"In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."[12] [13]

* Reasons for elimination: This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.[14] This study does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility because:

1) The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as "case-control" studies) "fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized."[15]

2) The study's results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees' honesty) can negate the results.[16] [17]

3) The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).[18])

Yeah, that really smacks of wacky creationist agenda.

For the record, I am adamantly opposed to semi-automatic firearms, and I think gun ownership requirements in this country are looser than lax. A bolt action rifle with a four round clip is all one needs for hunting.

Australia's rules sound good to me.

AND we need to address mental health care in this country.

[glatt]

There are some interesting points there, but I don't like two active threads about gun control. So I'm going to post all my replies in the original thread. Guns Don't Kill People.

[footfootfoot]

I was thinking that they should be merged.

[BigV]

Please don't merge them. That is unnecessary. You wouldn't herd two circles of people at a party....wait. You wouldn't push together the tables in the pub where two groups of people were talking about the same headline story would you?

Would you then merge upsetting today/irritating today/scorching groove today/apprehensive today threads and other similar pseudo-groups?

[glatt]

I'm not going to merge them.

But tw is the only person to post in this thread and not the other. So it's mostly the same people having the same conversation but moving from table to table to do it.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by DanaC

But assault weapons? If you need a battlefield weapon that pumps out mega quantities of bullets to hunt a deer or a bear than ur doin it rong.

Please define "assault weapon" and explain the substantial differences with non-"assault weapon"s.

If all that lad had been abe to acquire was a simple shotgun or hunting rifle the death toll would have been significantly lower.

How so?

Originally Posted by tw

Gun shows are where one buys the most deadly weapons and ammunition without even a background check.

I snipped the portion of your post designed to elicit an emotional response but left one of your "facts". What types of weapons are we talking about here? Were you at this gun show to see them? How often do you attend gun shows?

For the record, I am adamantly opposed to semi-automatic firearms, and I think gun ownership requirements in this country are looser than lax. A bolt action rifle with a four round clip is all one needs for hunting.

What exactly is a semi-automatic firearm? Why 4 and not 6? Is 10 too many? Why?

[footfootfoot]

I'll take a stab at answering some of these.

I think by "assault weapon", Dana means an A-10 Warthog. I confirmed this with the inch who said, "The A-10 can shoot, like 300 million 700 caliber rounds a second." He is only nine and prone to exaggeration but he does have "the Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft" Though we can't really be sure he is actually reading it and not just looking at the pictures.

Merriam Webster defines Assault:
1
a : a violent physical or verbal attack
b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces
c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)
2
a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact — compare battery 1b

My suspicion is that non-assault weapons would be soft cushions, stern looks, and an angry letter to the New York Times.


Re: reduced death toll, How so?

Simple shotguns, (like the Benelli that Tom Knapp used to shoot) are only used for hunting geese and shooting clay pigeons, hunting rifles are used for small, medium, and large game and none of those things were present at the shooting therefore the shooter wouldn't have had occasion to use either type of firearm.


Gun Shows with most deadly weapons and ammo. Again, a quick glance in Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft shows that once again, Lockheed Martin has pulled another winner out of the bag with its F-22 Raptor. As for the deadly ammo, I would discount the missiles as being "ammo" and would vote for 20mm DU rounds as being the deadliest ammo.

I was not at a gunshow to see thse things, I lack any sort of security clearance. I have never been to a gun show.


A semi-automatic firearm is a firearm that extracts the spent shell, chambers a new round and cocks the firing mechanism every time the trigger is pulled and a round is fired. A fully automatic firearm does this with a single trigger pull (or squeeze or press) until the magazine is emptied or the trigger is let off. Selective fire firearms can switch from fully auto to semi auto.

My Marlin 60 is a semi auto .22 tube magazine. The government can have it when they pry it from my warm living fingers with a generous buy-back check that would cover the purchase of a sweet bolt action .22 like a volquartsen.That would apply sufficient leverage upon my fingers to release my grip on my semi-auto Marlin.

Why 4 and not 6 or 10? I just pulled that number out of my ass since 4 is the max # of rounds you can have in your gun during hunting season here in NY. Actually, I think it's 5. One in the chamber in 4 in the mag. So yeah, 10 is too many as far as the DEC is concerned. Big fines, loss of hunting privileges, peepee smacking. So 4 is the number.

Originally Posted by lookout123

Please define "assault weapon" and explain the substantial differences with non-"assault weapon"s.

How so?
I snipped the portion of your post designed to elicit an emotional response but left one of your "facts". What types of weapons are we talking about here? Were you at this gun show to see them? How often do you attend gun shows?


What exactly is a semi-automatic firearm? Why 4 and not 6? Is 10 too many? Why?

[BigV]

Bailiff!

[infinite monkey]

Demand a Plan

http://www.demandaplan.org/

Originally Posted by President Obama, at the prayer vigil for Sandy Hook

This is our first task — caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.

And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm? Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know that they are loved, and teaching them to love in return? Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?

I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change.

Since I’ve been President, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by a mass shooting. The fourth time we’ve hugged survivors. The fourth time we’ve consoled the families of victims. And in between, there have been an endless series of deadly shootings across the country, almost daily reports of victims, many of them children, in small towns and big cities all across America — victims whose — much of the time, their only fault was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law — no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.

But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that — then surely we have an obligation to try.

In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens — from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators — in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. Because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Demand a Plan

http://www.demandaplan.org/

In Wake Of Tragedy, Americans Demand Reform Of Everything, Anything

[Shawnee123]

I demanded reform of your face, but I was reminded of the Right to Scare Worms.

[Flint]

sez u