Obama spreads the word in a land of God and guns

[Technosoul]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Obama spreads the word in a land of God and guns - 24 Oct 2008 - NZ Herald: International and World News Can a gun enthusiast explain the reasoning behind "The military call this an M16 assault rifle, but round here we call it a sporting firearm," What is sporting about an m16? Do you really need that much fire power to take out a squirrel? I don't know what you feed your wildlife on but around my area even a slug gun can deal with a rabbit. and as well the comment , The weapon, he says, lies at the heart of the 2008 presidential election. Really? why?

The quote had a contradiction because first he said he calls it a hunting firearm and then he said "the weapon".

Which is it in his mind?

All those animals and critters can be taken out wiht a 22 (even one made for kids to use when hunting).

What kind of two legged critters do they go hunting for around those parts anyway? Bigfoot?

Now if he is talking self defense then perhaps he could have a point concerning the right to bear arms. If I had my way those weapons should be banned for hunting purposes at least.

The guy is paniting a bad image of true hunters and sportsmen with his lame comments. No doubt he also uses a whale harpoon to go finshing for lake bass.

More and more I see these postings that seem more like a comedy prank then anything else, or is the world really on the verge of insanity? Not sure about which one is correct.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Yarn The constitution was designed to allow slavery two hundred years ago in the days of single shot muskets. It is not a document of pure virtue, and the second admendment wasn't designed for 2008.

Yes, the "Second" amendment wasn't.

And the Framers probably never envisioned "speech" to include typing on computers and sending the text over wires to the world, but here we are.

I am all for an amendment to the Constitution. If you think you can get an Amendment passed repealing the 2nd, go for it. But an end run around it is just nonsense.

Quote by: SoylentGreen Given Robert Marsh II post on describing the guns fire power, I would think the word assault is accurate. Given that the links to a m16 all refer to it as an assault rifle then it is hardly the term of an idiot.

Except that the M-16 is a military only rifle. The rifle these men are shooting is an AR-15, the civilian semi-automatic version, which is no more dangerous or deadly than your common hunting rifle.

And i assume your desperate if your best shot is a strawman .

The car analogy was the most adept one - the rest I was just filling in.

Again always good fun to blow things to bits, But how is this defined as sporting, in any sense of the word.

I don't know, why don't you ask any of the thousands of youngsters that take part in their high school rifle team?

Why don't you ask the IOC, since shooting is an Olympic sport in several forms?

Why don't you ask ESPN, who puts many different types of shooting events on their channels?

Generally , or is it in fact a specific measure of control. From what i have read obama seeks some common sense laws and gun enthusiasts turn this into some nonsense about banning all guns.

I suppose I should explain my position - I think that law-abiding citizens who pass a background check and can state in one sentence a legitimate reason for owning a weapon should be allowed to purchase any firearm they would like to have after a 5-day waiting period. These things are all possible and entirely feasible with modern technology.

My point is that there is no reason to limit law-abiding citizens to particular types of weapons.

Quote by: Morality Games In fact, the second amendment explicitly states its purpose is maintaining a militia. That's a bit different from stating the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon whatsoever simply for the purpose that people should be allowed have guns, as gun-rights advocates contend. If they were honest, they would admit that.

I do admit it. The problem for you is that does not change the argument and in fact strengthens it. The way to interpret laws is to use the plain meaning of the word at the time the word was written.

At the time the Bill of Rights was written, the "militia" was a community organization made up of townsfolk, and dedicated to maintaining public order and security. It was ordinary citizens arming themselves.

That is exactly what today's gun-rights advocates want.

Quote by: Sonart . No, tivodan, it's not. Assault Rifle is a legitimate term for a variety of military weapons. The problem, of course, is when you get a bunch of gun loons drooling over such weapons, "GooOOOolly, I want me one a them". A WWII M1 carbine may be one thing... once you start playing with more modern, powerful assault weapons, rational Americans start to get worried and start passing reasonable restrictions.

What are your "reasonable restrictions"? And why should we let anti-gun people who tremble at the very thought of people protecting themselves tell us what "reasonable restrictions" are?

You just want your high-powered playthings and you don't give a flying rip about anyone elses safety if it interferes with your "freedom" to indulge yourselves.

Anyone else's safety? Please show me in no uncertain terms how the safety of others is harmed by lawful gun owners using them for target practice.

I'll brace myself for your inevitable "correlation without causation" fallacies now.

...here we see a suspect taking aim at the outgunned police with his new, high-powered Microsoft Word. A fascinating analogy, tivo.

Which of course if you had professional-level education in criminal justice, you'd know was a good argument for my point.

The North Hollywood bank robbers obtained their guns through illegal means (in part by illegal purchases traced to the Great Western Gun Show). They were only stopped because police officers raided a nearby gun shop and got better weapons - weapons which were only in that gun shop because they were legal for citizens to buy.

Had just a few citizens been armed and carrying the high powered weapons the police commandeered, the shootout would have been over much more quickly.

I used to know kids who thought making pipe bombs was tons of fun, and others who thought street racing was fun.

LOL... are you intentionally trying to make my argument for me?

Pipe bombs and street racing are both highly illegal... and yet, strangely, they still exist.

I don't get liberals... They understand that drug prohibition doesn't work, gambling prohibition doesn't work, prostitution prohibition doesn't work... but gun prohibition will result in a magical panacea where we all sit around the campfire singing cum-by-ya and eating s'mores.

At some point one has to be mature enough to weigh ones personal pleasure against the threat to public safety. I'm sure that at one point, when our country was a pastoral, agrarian society of small, isolated, subsistence farmsteads surrounded by vast wilderness, wild game and hostile indians, firearms were a vital tool. Now, more often then not, they're simply very deadly playthings. Time to grow up.

Hmm I don't see any facts in there to support your argument. Probably because it's based on nothing but your own misunderstanding of the role of legal gun ownership in our society.

Legal gun ownership is no threat to public safety any more than legal ownership of any other tool.

Number one, who said anything about removing guns ONLY from law-abiding citizens.

Once again, you live in a fantasy world. How do you propose to remove guns from criminals? Ask them politely? Pass yet another law they won't follow? Go door-to-door asking for them?

Really, your arguments come straight from the playbook of thoroughly debunked anti-gun nonsense.

Number two, the U.S. has the highest percentage of households with guns than any country in the world that measures such things, while also being among the most violent free, supposedly civilized nations, so owning guns obviously hasn't helped make us less violent, have they?

Correlation without causation. Thanks for playing, though.

So do you think that the prohibition of drugs has made less drugs available? LOL...

All it does is make more guns available to criminals...

Right, just like making drugs legal would... oh wait, making drugs legal would make them LESS available to criminals. Nevermind... LOL

..."criminals" being a "scary term cooked up by gun lovers" since a criminal may be a perfectly law-abiding citizen... right up to the second they decide to squeeze the trigger on their perfectly legal firearm.

The fact that your "point" here is unsupported by any reasonable measure of fact notwithstanding, how do you figure that removing guns will lead to the person not making that decision anyhow with a different instrumentality of criminal behavior? The criminal decision isn't pulling the trigger, the criminal decision is what it's pointed at.

Given that the Bush Supreme Court just overturned 70 years of the only Supreme Court definition the 2nd Amendment has ever had, I'd say it was RE-designed for 2008. How fitting... yet another glorious victory for the Bush legacy.

Quote by: Sonart . Alas, the opposite is true. After generations of the NRA and gun owners lying to themselves and us about their 2nd Amendment rights, which 70 years of Supreme Court and lower Court precedent said we don't have -- it being a "Collective Right" for the purpose of arming volunteer civilian militias, rather than an individual right -- Dear Leader's Robert's Court hypocritically went against everything Roberts, Alito and Scalia claim to stand for and overturned U.S. v Miller this past June. So only now is the law of the land what they've been trying to say it was back when it actually wasn't. Ironical, huh!!! .

Yeah... incorrect precedents should always be followed. Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade were terrible, illegal decisions, right?

Roberts, Alito, and Scalia claim to stand for original intent. If you think the original intent of the Founding Fathers was for the citizenry to be unarmed, i'm sorry to say you're pathetically uninformed.

I'm assuming you have a law degree to understand what actually happened in that case? If not, you're merely quoting liberal talking points without really understanding the situation.

[minorwork]

Quote by: Sonart . By all means then, minorwork, please... explain how firearms owned by American civilians would have saved Representative McDonald.

'Would have' requires imagination and the application of counter factuals that. What? You couldn't do that yourself? Larry thought he was safe in a commercial air liner.

Quote by: Sonart Or even how, in the last century, they've defended our "freedoms".

How about this century? Though, seeing your view, you would find something wrong, even, with defending freedom personally. Anyway, you might have heard of the shootings at the New Life Church? Remember? Used to be Ted Haggard's favorite preaching spot. Xavier Thoughts: Jeanne Assam's Story or maybe LiveLeak.com - Homeowner shoots burglar in self defense and why not site the increasing justifiable homicides. Justifiable Homicides at Highest in More than a Decade, FBI Says . Do these work for ya'?

Quote by: SoylentGreen Nice choice of words. If you had said stipulate instead of address then there could be no arguing the finer details of what is self defence and what is assault. This is arguing the use of one weapon as apposed to banning all weapons. So it is still addressing the method.that preserve freedom.

I don't understand. Can you, maybe, expand your thoughts a little?

I was remembering the story of Paul Revere's, now mythical, ride. He was warning of British troops coming to seize the citizens, private citizens, firearms and the direction that they were approaching from. God forbid that such action be deemed necessary by our own government on its own citizens en masse. It would be indicative of the necessity for a change in that government. Such a government and its supporters would find it a bad idea for slaves to own guns. But why would any today consider themselves slaves? Unless, maybe, they were not allowed to adequately defend themselves and their friends and family.

[SoylentGreen]

TechnosoulWhat kind of two legged critters do they go hunting for around those parts anyway? Bigfoot?

And why do they hunt them? A few rounds in a rabbit and it's no good for food or pelt.

tivodan1116 Except that the M-16 is a military only rifle. The rifle these men are shooting is an AR-15, the civilian semi-automatic version, which is no more dangerous or deadly than your common hunting rifle.

So then it would seem that gun supporters like Farnes Williams is either willing to lie to get support or he can't tell the difference between one gun and another. Either way his word is suspect.

I don't know, why don't you ask any of the thousands of youngsters that take part in their high school rifle team? Why don't you ask the IOC, since shooting is an Olympic sport in several forms? Why don't you ask ESPN, who puts many different types of shooting events on their channels?

Personally if i were putting together a rule about assault guns then organised sports and the teaching of gun awareness and the enjoyment of viewing these things would be exempt.
But to hand them over to people who want to massacre a rabbit just for fun is a bit much. They can always use a shotgun .

I suppose I should explain my position - I think that law-abiding citizens who pass a background check and can state in one sentence a legitimate reason for owning a weapon should be allowed to purchase any firearm they would like to have after a 5-day waiting period. These things are all possible and entirely feasible with modern technology. My point is that there is no reason to limit law-abiding citizens to particular types of weapons

I agree with your position.

My reason is that it is how the gun is used. Encouraging butchery of wildlife does nothing for any pro gun stance.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: tivodan I am all for an amendment to the Constitution. If you think you can get an Amendment passed repealing the 2nd, go for it. But an end run around it is just nonsense.

We've had a perfectly acceptable "end around" since the SCOTUS first ruled on the 2nd Amendment in 1939, and 8 out of the 11 Circuit Courts of Appeal subsequently affirmed and clarified that ruling. Which is that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says, that you have the right to keep and bear arms provided that it is necessary for the maintenance of a well-regulated volunteer civilian militia, as defined by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. That was the exact intent of the founders. If you don't believe me, read the Federalist Papers... they clearly discuss the intent and purpose of militia compared to a standing federal army.

So we don't need an Amendment because the raison d'etre for the Amendment no longer exists... It's moot... meaningless... a quaint vestige. We no longer have volunteer civilian militias because their function is now in the capable hands of our Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, National Guard, etc.

All we need is for the Supreme Court to come to it's senses and reverse DC v Heller.

Quote by: tivodan What are your "reasonable restrictions"? And why should we let anti-gun people who tremble at the very thought of people protecting themselves tell us what "reasonable restrictions" are?

Whatever the voters decide are reasonable, and the public supports more gun control, not less. And it's not the thought of people protecting themselves that sets me atremble, tivo. ONCE AGAIN, the United States has the highest gun onwership and the highest percentage of households with guns of ANY country... by far... and yet we remain among the most violent, murderous nations on earth. Not only that, but within the U.S. homicide rates are higher in states with more gun owners.

By your logic, the exact opposite should be true, since according to you, more guns make us safer.

Quote by: tivodan Which of course if you had professional-level education in criminal justice, you'd know was a good argument for my point.

No, I'm sorry, but your analogy to software made no sense whatsoever.

Quote by: tivodan Anyone else's safety? Please show me in no uncertain terms how the safety of others is harmed by lawful gun owners using them for target practice.

In the spring of 1998, two young Arkansas country boys, 13 yr-old Mitch Johnson and 11 yr-old Andrew Golden...



... went target shooting with a pair of perfectly legal firearms owned by one of the boy's grandfather, and both were well trained by the local youth gun safety program. It apparently helped, as the boys demonstrated considerable skill in hitting their targets from 200 ft away, killing four of their female fellow students, their teacher, and wounding 10 others as they rushed from their school after the two boys set off the fire alarm.

Being tough on criminals the way salt-of-the-earth Sarah Palin country folks are, Mitch Johnson and Andrew Golden were both released from jail 6 years later, in 2005. In fact, neither has any criminal record at all and can legally buy a gun if they choose.

Quote by: tivodan but gun prohibition will result in a magical panacea where we all sit around the campfire singing cum-by-ya and eating s'mores.

Well, allowing more guns certainly hasn't worked.

Quote by: tivodan Hmm I don't see any facts in there to support your argument. Probably because it's based on nothing but your own misunderstanding of the role of legal gun ownership in our society.

Oh really??? The mocking tone was a nice touch, but perhaps it's you who should demonstrate how my assessment of the history of firearms in America was wrong. "God may have made men, but Sam Colt made them lethal"

Quote by: tivodan Legal gun ownership is no threat to public safety any more than legal ownership of any other tool.

A gun is not a tool... it's a weapon, invented and designed for one purpose; to kill from a distance. Once you squeeze the trigger, a bullet cannot be recalled or held back.

"Yoshihiro Hattori was a Japanese exchange student residing in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States at the time of his death (in Oct. 1992). Hattori was on his way to a Halloween party when he mistook the address and stepped onto the wrong suburban property. The property owner, Rodney Peairs, mortally wounded Hattori with gunfire, thinking he was trespassing with criminal intent. The controversial homicide, and Peairs' subsequent acquittal in the state court of Louisiana, received worldwide attention."

Here's another perfectly legal gun owner using his perfectly legal "tool"...

Allen S. Davis was sentenced last month to 19 years in prison after pleading guilty in a (2007) shooting incident on his front lawn. A jury would have had a difficult time believing he could see well enough to pull off a head shot, yet couldn’t see well enough to determine that his “attackers” were two teenaged girls trying to catch a closer look at his “spooky house”.

Quote by: tivodan Yeah... incorrect precedents should always be followed. Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade were terrible, illegal decisions, right?

The Surpeme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972, then reversed that decision a mere 3 years later. One can only hope the Court will one day reverse Scalia's idiocy and return the law to the way it stood for 70s, unchallenged by the NRA and gun lobby... EVAN AS they told their constituents that they had right the law of the land clearly declared they didn't.

Quote by: tivodan Roberts, Alito, and Scalia claim to stand for original intent. If you think the original intent of the Founding Fathers was for the citizenry to be unarmed, i'm sorry to say you're pathetically uninformed.

To the contrary, that's not at all what Scalia said. He said the original intent -- which clearly referred to the maintainence of a a well-regulated militia - was irrellevent, and that the right refers "to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny,..."

In other words, "strict-constructionist" Scalia is suddenly in the business of "interpreting" the meaning based not on the writings of the time but his own beliefs. And of course, both Roberts and Alito swore up and down during their confirmations that their belief in adhering to 'stare decisis' - standing precendent - rock solid. Right.

Quote by: minorwork 'Would have' requires imagination and the application of counter factuals that. What? You couldn't do that yourself? Larry thought he was safe in a commercial air liner.

That's nice... but once again, please explain how the 2nd Amendment would have prevented Congressman McDonald's airliner from being shot down by a Soviet missile?

Quote by: minorwork Do these work for ya'?

Just fine... except in answering how they defended our freedoms. How about the two examples I included above... they defending "our freedoms" too?

.

[Yarn]

Tivodan1116:

Yes, the "Second" amendment wasn't.

What? Is it a person?

And the Framers probably never envisioned "speech" to include typing on computers and sending the text over wires to the world, but here we are.

Granted. Nor did they envision K-street.

I am all for an amendment to the Constitution. If you think you can get an Amendment passed repealing the 2nd, go for it. But an end run around it is just nonsense.

I disagree. We should not be subject to the inflexible tyranny of a document ratified by men long dead on an issue if the mass majority of us won't dain to overthrow one of their dictates. Rather we should allow their document to morph to fit modern sensibilities. To quote Thomas Jefferson "The Earth belongs to the living and not to the dead." He by the way thought that judicial review was unconstitutional. Where would we be without it?
- Thomas Jefferson's Reaction, Marbury v. Madison, Landmark Supreme Court Cases

[Sonart]

.

Fascinating link, Yarn. I loved this one...

"The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." -- Thomas Jefferson

How many cases involving Constitutional questions does the High Court and Circuit Courts decide every year? Did Jefferson actually think we should call a Constitutional Convention to decide every lawsuit involving a question of Constitutional rights?

.

[SoylentGreen]

minorwork I don't understand. Can you, maybe, expand your thoughts a little?

Removing of , or restricting the use of weapons does not remove your right to own a weapon. You quote that

The quote and the second amendment address methods that preserve freedom.

Is this not also a debate that discusses methods that preserve freedom?

I was remembering the story of Paul Revere's, now mythical, ride. He was warning of British troops coming to seize the citizens, private citizens, firearms and the direction that they were approaching from. God forbid that such action be deemed necessary by our own government on its own citizens en masse. It would be indicative of the necessity for a change in that government. Such a government and its supporters would find it a bad idea for slaves to own guns. But why would any today consider themselves slaves? Unless, maybe, they were not allowed to adequately defend themselves and their friends and family.

But this isn't about baning guns. Either show where obama definitely says he wants all guns removed , or try arguing it is a slippery slope .

[minorwork]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Removing of , or restricting the use of weapons does not remove your right to own a weapon. You quote that Is this not also a debate that discusses methods that preserve freedom? But this isn't about baning guns. Either show where obama definitely says he wants all guns removed , or try arguing it is a slippery slope .

Thanks for the clue. I was off topic for sure. Slippery slope would be my position. I just would like my state, Illinois, to pass a concealed carry law. I could not tell you what Obama has done here for or against that proposition. I would guess he does not favor private ownership of working, loaded firearms.

OK I've found this site. Barack Obama on Gun Control

[Yarn]

Sonart:

Fascinating link, Yarn. I loved this one...

"The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." -- Thomas Jefferson

How many cases involving Constitutional questions does the High Court and Circuit Courts decide every year? Did Jefferson actually think we should call a Constitutional Convention to decide every lawsuit involving a question of Constitutional rights?

Something like that. He also believed we should throw out our constitution every generation, and write a new one. I'm not saying I agree with him on this stuff.

I just think that its true that the constitution should not be always be interpeted in the strictist possible sense because thats not a practical or fair thing to do. Judicial review is an example of how being flexible with our interpretation of the constitution has served to enforce and preserve the constitution as well as serve the greater good.

minorwork:

I would guess he does not favor private ownership of working, loaded firearms.

As the website you cite shows, his position is more moderate than that.

Before I post more in this thread let me make something clear:

Regardless of my constitutional views, I don't actually view gun laws in general as being effective at reducing violence. Particularly when such laws they are only local or are profile specific (e.g. no felons). Even in Great Britian, where there is a complete national ban on private handguns, handgun use has only risen since the ban.
- BBC News | UK | Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

The fight against illicit gun possession is a lot like the war against drugs, though I think I prefer the latter.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Robert Marsh II The history of the M16 assault (sporting?) rifle: AR-15, M16, M16A1, M16A2, M16A3: > The M16 uses a 5.56mm (.223 caliber) cartridge round (bullet), and is stored in a 20 or 30 round magazine straight, or banana curved clip. > The secret to the firepower of the M16 assault rifle, is hidden within the 5.56mm, .223 caliber bullet. It is due to the length of the bullet itself, once discharged from the barrel of the weapon, it begins to 'TUMBLE' through the air end-over-end! Also, this round is a high-powered charged round, giving it a dynamic flight-path. > Once meeting whatever it comes in contact with, it rips, shreds, and tears due to it's flipping motions. > In the case of a hit upon a human or animal target, it enters the body tumbling through the flesh, taking an unstable path through the body, and possibly exiting any of many unknown locations. > It is the damage caused by the tumbling round, that makes it devastating to a target! Modern Firearms - AR-15 M16 M16A1 M16A2 M16A3 assault rifle M16A2 5.56mm Semiautomatic Rifle

M16's 5.56 caliber is contributed to major objective :
- take as many as possible enemies away from a battlefield
Why to use that 5.56 caliber, instead of (AK-47, for example) 7.62 ?
U.S. Army come with a following concept :
- injured and/or wounded military personnel requires an immidiate medical help and/or assistance
Therefore, certain number of soldiers would be occupied in/with helping wounded one(s), instead of fighting. That is the major reason behind that M16 caliber of 5.56 instead of 7.62

P.S.
AK-47 (with 7.62 caliber) manifests a quite similar "tumble technology".

[Apeman81]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Obama spreads the word in a land of God and guns - 24 Oct 2008 - NZ Herald: International and World News Can a gun enthusiast explain the reasoning behind "The military call this an M16 assault rifle, but round here we call it a sporting firearm," What is sporting about an m16? Do you really need that much fire power to take out a squirrel? I don't know what you feed your wildlife on but around my area even a slug gun can deal with a rabbit. and as well the comment , The weapon, he says, lies at the heart of the 2008 presidential election. Really? why?

This is just so silly. The Ruger Mini-14 fires the same round. It too, can hold 30+ rounds in a single magazine. But is is not called an "Assault Rifle".
Stupid titles serve only to inflame the uninformed.
Any rifle, handgun. knife, spatula, etc can be used in an assault.

[Robert Marsh II]

The Ruger Mini-14 is called an assault rifle by Law Enforcement at the Washington County Sheriff's Office, and is described as an assault weapon (rifle).

Johnson City, Washington County authorities 'prepared to meet a threat of force'

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Yarn The fight against illicit gun possession is a lot like the war against drugs, though I think I prefer the latter.

I like to think of it as more like the 'War against Smoking'. It's not so much about taking away anyone's guns as simply convincing Americans that guns are an anachronism in today's world, that like cigarettes, they're vastly more dangerous than any benefit we think they provide.

Hopefully it's an evolution that has already begun. Fewer and fewer Americans own guns, and hunting is a rapidly dying sport.

With time, fewer and fewer people will think that guns are cool.

.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Morality Games In fact, the second amendment explicitly states its purpose is maintaining a militia. That's a bit different from stating the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon whatsoever simply for the purpose that people should be allowed have guns, as gun-rights advocates contend. If they were honest, they would admit that.

The USSC disagrees. Try again

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Robert Marsh II The Ruger Mini-14 is called an assault rifle by Law Enforcement at the Washington County Sheriff's Office, and is described as an assault weapon (rifle). Johnson City, Washington County authorities 'prepared to meet a threat of force'

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

The over the counter mini 14 does not have two or more of the following as listed above.

The article you sight misuses the term. Proof of my assertion that stupid titles only serve to inflame the uninformed.

[minorwork]

How many would have suffered if they hadn't used a gun for self defense? GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." ---Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

The Ninth Amendment
The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
--- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Sonart . I like to think of it as more like the 'War against Smoking'. It's not so much about taking away anyone's guns as simply convincing Americans that guns are an anachronism in today's world, that like cigarettes, they're vastly more dangerous than any benefit we think they provide. Hopefully it's an evolution that has already begun. Fewer and fewer Americans own guns, and hunting is a rapidly dying sport. With time, fewer and fewer people will think that guns are cool. .

And in that magic world in which no pendulum swings, what happens when enough people look down their all too intellectual noses at the remaining practitioners of their inalienable right recognized by the limiting of Federal power as recorded in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Amend the constitution or obey it.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: minorwork How many would have suffered if they hadn't used a gun for self defense?

Ignoring the fact that Kleck's study is the subject of considerable skepticism, the answer to your point is essentially a great big 'So what?' What does Kleck's (completely speculative) research tell us? Well, that huge numbers of Americans are brandishing guns at one another.

But are we safer because of it? Obviously not, because, ONCE AGAIN, despite having more guns per capita and a higher percentage of households owning guns, the U.S. remains among the most gun violent free, civilized nations on earth. So having more guns, despite increasing the number of gun defenses, increases the number of gun violence even more.

Quote by: minorwork The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.

LIke for instance... the right to feed and shelter my family? Nope, no guarantees there. The right to medical care for my family? No again... health care is a commodity according to Republicans. The right to travel wherever and however I see fit? No, I still have to register and insure my car, have a license to operate that car on public roads and to re-qualify for that license on a regular basis.

Quote by: Apeman And in that magic world in which no pendulum swings, what happens when enough people look down their all too intellectual noses at the remaining practitioners of their inalienable right recognized by the limiting of Federal power as recorded in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Some pendulums simply don't swing back, Apeman. America is never going back to being a lightly populated, pastoral agrarian society surrounded by pristine wilderness, and we're never going back to a time when a high tech military meant lining up as many men as possible, shoulder to shoulder, armed with single shot muskets, or when the defense of this country, from enemies foreign and domestic, was left to volunteer civilian militias. And there was no "inalienable individual right" to own firearms before this past June. Quite the opposite.

Quote by: Apeman Amend the constitution or obey it.

LOLOL Right... like we have with the 1st Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

And yet, in 1893 Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion on our currency, and did the same thing in 1868, and in 1954 Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion into our school children's Pledge of Allegiance, and in 1957 Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion in our national motto.

But I digress... we don't need to do either. The better option is for the next SCOTUS to return to their senses and overturn DC v. Heller, thus restoring the definition of the 2nd Amendment to what it was for the last 70 years, and the only legal definition since the Constitution went into affect, which is U.S. v Miller, and the various lower court rulings that confirmed and expanded on Miller, which stated that we have the right to keep and bear arms PROVIDED THAT it was necessary for the maintenance of a well-regulated volunteer civilian militia.

.

[ironeagle]

First of America is bigger than the majority of the other countries out there which automatically gives us a higher poplulation and therefore the amount of crimes will be higher since we have more people.

Sonart: I think it's too bad you have such a negative and fogged view of AMericans becuase if you could come here and stay a week with us you 'd see us regular people ar epretty nice to be around. We do normal stuff just like you, except that we get real protective when a criminal tries to break into our homes, so we point a gun and shot to kill if we have to. It saves us court costs, and the money it costs to house criminals who pray on families.