Second Amendment

[Revoltingest]

I know that this has been hashed and re-hashed but I guess it's time again (stupid stupid stupid to try though) to find out what ones definition of an "assault rifle" is. Something tells me this question is "stupid stupid stupid stupid". However we seem to have some new voices on the forum so let's let them put forth their opinions.
I'll be stupid and start

a firearm that looks scary.

I prefer the old fashioned (non-media) definition that it's a select fire capable small arm for infantry use.
Alas, your definition predominates now.

 

[metis]

I have entered just about every question on your statement " Law enforcement officials across the nation, including the FBI, have stated that in most cases it is not wise to keep a loaded gun in one's house" and I can't find any article on this. Maybe it would be helpful if you provided the source of your statement.
I will not even attempt to comment on the last part, because I totally disagree with you, and you agree with your opinion.

There's many studies, and it took me two minutes to find this one:

Gun "accidents" are not necessarily the biggest risk from these family-owned guns, say the researchers.

In 1998, 55 percent of gun deaths among children aged 10 to 18 in North Carolina were homicides. Thirty-nine percent were suicides.

"In North Carolina, the majority of gun deaths among [kids] are … suicides," says Coyne-Beasley. "Most teens … who commit suicide do it with a gun they find in the home.

"If [the gun] is locked up, unloaded, and the ammunition [is] locked and stored separately, [it provides] a cooling-off period before they can hurt themselves."

The study looked at 286 parents visiting hospital emergency rooms in North Carolina. Ninety-four owned guns and had children under the age of 7. -- http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117480&page=1

and this took another 5 minutes to find:

Having a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home.1 Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.2 Rather than conferring protection, guns in the home are associated with an increased risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%... -- http://smartgunlaws.org/guns-in-the-homesafe-storage-statistics/

and this:

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. -- http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

And there's plenty more where these come from.

BTW, I mentioned it before but I'll briefly mention it again, namely that even though anthropology was my main subject to teach, the other one was political science, which I taught for around 25 years. Every semester I brought in law enforcement from the state or local police or the FBI or the Border Patrol, and every time I or a student asked them about having a loaded gun in the house, the answer was always the same: no.

 

[metis]

What do you believe are the functional differences between assault-type rifles and non assaults rifles?

Generally speaking, the size of the projectile and the fact that many of the assault-style rifles can be and have been converted quite easily in some cases to become automatics, plus they were generally designed for military purposes.

Let me ask you some questions in return: Why do you feel that civilians here need assault-style guns? Lousy hunters? To look like big boys? To pretend they're Rambo on weekends?

 

[Skwim]

Generally speaking, the size of the projectile and the fact that many of the assault-style rifles can be and have been converted, often very easily to become automatics, plus they were generally designed for military purposes.

Let me ask you some questions in return: Why do you feel that civilians here need assault-style guns? Lousy hunters? To look like big boys? To pretend they're Rambo on weekends?

It's the penis thing writ large. Pure and simple.

 

[Mister Emu]

Generally speaking, the size of the projectile and the fact that many of the assault-style rifles can be and have been converted quite easily in some cases to become automatics, plus they were generally designed for military purposes.

So caliber and difficulty(or lack thereof) for conversion to automatic.

Let me ask you some questions in return: Why do you feel that civilians here need assault-style guns? Lousy hunters? To look like big boys? To pretend they're Rambo on weekends?

The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is that we, the people, should be so armed as to be a concern to them, the representatives in the federal government. I would that every man in the country were militarily equipped. The works. When is the last time a President came to office with the idea of "oh crap, I can't mess this up." Lincoln? Earlier?

It's the penis thing writ large

Somebody likes things I don't like?! Insult them!

 

[Apex]

Generally speaking, the size of the projectile

So what sizes qualify and what ones do not?

and the fact that many of the assault-style rifles can be and have been converted quite easily in some cases to become automatics

Proof?

plus they were generally designed for military purposes.

Please show what civilian ARs were designed for military purposes.


Also, would you consider any of these three rifles "assault-style" rifles?

 

[Apex]

It's the penis thing writ large. Pure and simple.

Is there any particular reason why you are only capable of talking about penises when guns come up?

 

[metis]

So what sizes qualify and what ones do not?


Proof?


Please show what civilian ARs were designed for military purposes.


Also, would you consider any of these three rifles "assault-style" rifles?

I'm not going to play silly little games.

 

[Apex]

I'm not going to play silly little games.

Supporting your opinion is a silly game?

 

[metis]

The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is that we, the people, should be so armed as to be a concern to them, the representatives in the federal government. I would that every man in the country were militarily equipped. ?

The main directive is with the "militia" in the states, which in some states like mine is called the "national guard", along with a national military. Much like the nation needed a military, which was hit and miss under the Articles of Confederation, the states also were allowed to have their own military, so the allowance was and is for a ",,, a well regulated militia...". No SCOTUS decision ever stated that all Americans under all conditions have the right to "bear arms".

 

[metis]

Supporting your opinion is a silly game?

I posted sources for what I had previously stated in post #162.

fini

 

[Apex]

I posted sources for what I had previously stated in post #162.

fini

Looking over that post it does not appear that any of those address what should and should not be considered an assault style weapon.

 

[Mister Emu]

No SCOTUS decision ever stated that all Americans under all conditions have the right to "bear arms".

Um, yeah. Heller did unquestionably say that. And, Verdugo-Urquidez, a decision about aliens and the 14th specifically mentioned that the 2nd refers to anyone who is part of our national community.

 

[metis]

Um, yeah. Heller did unquestionably say that. And, Verdugo-Urquidez, a decision about aliens and the 14th specifically mentioned that the 2nd refers to anyone who is part of our national community.

False. First of all:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual'sright to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Notice that the last sentence is what I had posted previously.

Secondly, the SCOTUS has upheld state bans on prisoners not owning guns plus felons and those who may be mentally ill.

Anyhow, this issue that brought me into this discussion has nothing to do with the above but had to do with keeping a loaded gun in one's home, which I said in most cases was not a good move. Therefore, I will no longer respond to any points other than those that relate to that.

BTW, you might want to check out this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

 

[esmith]

Unfortunately your last post (at the end of this) has nothing to do with your first statement that I will highlight in red. I then said I could find no data supporting your claim. Yet you persist in attempting to furnish articles that do not support your statement. Where is the data that supports your statement that is highlighted in red. I'll give you a hint Nowhere. Do you find any data in the article that mentions Law enforcement or the FBI. The only statement given is in the last sentence which is hearsay. I also can provide data from law enforcement that says they support law abiding citizens to have a firearm in the residence. I will actually provide you with some links
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...g-Arm-yourself-we-might-not-get-there-in-time
http://lastresistance.com/10132/texas-sheriff-tells-residents-arm-amid-county-budget-cuts/
http://americanfreepress.net/html/sheriff_tells_border_town_218.html
So, it appears that your statement is flawed.

Actually there are, and it's very important to realize that not all studies nor all opinions are equal. Law enforcement officials across the nation, including the FBI, have stated that in most cases it is not wise to keep a loaded gun in one's house. One can play politics with this all they want, but the most thorough and conclusive studies have shown this to be the case. And common sense should also clarify any doubt about this.

9-10 P said it well above, and the issue is not any intent on my part to take all guns away from the public, but to limit certain guns, especially handguns, large clips, and assault-type rifles.

I have entered just about every question on your statement " Law enforcement officials across the nation, including the FBI, have stated that in most cases it is not wise to keep a loaded gun in one's house" and I can't find any article on this. Maybe it would be helpful if you provided the source of your statement.
I will not even attempt to comment on the last part, because I totally disagree with you, and you agree with your opinion.

There's many studies, and it took me two minutes to find this one:

Gun "accidents" are not necessarily the biggest risk from these family-owned guns, say the researchers.

In 1998, 55 percent of gun deaths among children aged 10 to 18 in North Carolina were homicides. Thirty-nine percent were suicides.

"In North Carolina, the majority of gun deaths among [kids] are … suicides," says Coyne-Beasley. "Most teens … who commit suicide do it with a gun they find in the home.

"If [the gun] is locked up, unloaded, and the ammunition [is] locked and stored separately, [it provides] a cooling-off period before they can hurt themselves."

The study looked at 286 parents visiting hospital emergency rooms in North Carolina. Ninety-four owned guns and had children under the age of 7. -- http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117480&page=1

and this took another 5 minutes to find:

Having a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home.1 Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.2 Rather than conferring protection, guns in the home are associated with an increased risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%... -- http://smartgunlaws.org/guns-in-the-homesafe-storage-statistics/

and this:

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. -- http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

And there's plenty more where these come from.

BTW, I mentioned it before but I'll briefly mention it again, namely that even though anthropology was my main subject to teach, the other one was political science, which I taught for around 25 years. Every semester I brought in law enforcement from the state or local police or the FBI or the Border Patrol, and every time I or a student asked them about having a loaded gun in the house, the answer was always the same: no.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The Geneva convention.

You mean you would apply the conventional weapons protocols to civilians? How would that work?

Self defense is against more than just petty thugs. I'll quote one of our founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 28:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government".

The right to bear individual weapons hasn't kept pace with the ability of the government and their military, though, and quotes from the founding fathers never seem to be put into context. The way the laws are currently enacted, you have civilians able to keep large stockpiles of hand weapons without the need for training or structure, but not able to keep the sort of weapons or receive the sort of training and organization that would actually matter. Should civilians be able to stockpile Stingers?

 

[esmith]

Generally speaking, the size of the projectile and the fact that many of the assault-style rifles can be and have been converted quite easily in some cases to become automatics, plus they were generally designed for military purposes.

Let me ask you some questions in return: Why do you feel that civilians here need assault-style guns? Lousy hunters? To look like big boys? To pretend they're Rambo on weekends?

Getting a little sarcastic here aren't we. So turn about is fair play. No we like them because it drives anti-gun nuts crazy.
No, the reason people like them is because just like some people like art, music, wine,cars, food, etc. they enjoy shooting them, competing with them, and basically like a finely manufactured piece of hardware. So, I have little problem with your opinion just don't try and shove your opinion upon the rest of us.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This reminded me of an old saying....
"Beware the man with one gun. He knows how to use it."
(Some attribute it to Elmer Keith, & some to Patton.)
It's not the number owned, but rather intent & competence.

Agreed. But to the best of my understanding, there are limited demands on 'competence', and the size and nature of the collection can speak to intent. If I own 8 assault rifles, I'm not merely worried about a burglar, and I'm not a sports hunter. Perhaps I am a collector, perhaps I am a prepper, etc, but it does rule out some intents. (Obviously generalising)

An "arsenal" is really just a demonized word to make a "collection" seem dangerous.

Yeah. But they are dangerous. A collection of stamps is not an arsenal. A collection of assault rifles are. I'm surprised you would quibble with the word usage. It's accurate. I read a stupid amount of military history, so arsenal is just another word.

 

[Mister Emu]

You mean you would apply the conventional weapons protocols to civilians? How would that work?

It was somewhat facetiously saying that anything the government allows itself to maintain as weaponry should be allowed for the citizenry. As in, the people should be allowed anything that is acceptable under the geneva convention.

edit: The idea is not that I necessarily want tanks out on the roads or in backyards, but that for the most part people should be able to procure military grade equipment.

 

[metis]

Unfortunately your last post (at the end of this) has nothing to do with your first statement that I will highlight in red. I then said I could find no data supporting your claim. Yet you persist in attempting to furnish articles that do not support your statement. Where is the data that supports your statement that is highlighted in red. I'll give you a hint Nowhere. Do you find any data in the article that mentions Law enforcement or the FBI. The only statement given is in the last sentence which is hearsay. I also can provide data from law enforcement that says they support law abiding citizens to have a firearm in the residence. I will actually provide you with some links
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...g-Arm-yourself-we-might-not-get-there-in-time
http://lastresistance.com/10132/texas-sheriff-tells-residents-arm-amid-county-budget-cuts/
http://americanfreepress.net/html/sheriff_tells_border_town_218.html
So, it appears that your statement is flawed.

Prior to me mentioning law enforcement, I mentioned studies, and I provided you with quotes and links with the latter. I provided you with scientific studies, and you supplied opinion pieces above. Not the same. The law enforcement statements I stated quite clearly came from having them in as speakers.

All you and some others are doing are playing silly little games. You have the full right to do so, but it involves you burrowing your heads in the sand to believe in what you want to believe.

As I stated before, I have not in any way supported a ban on all guns or for all or even most people, and I have stated that in some cases some people may be better off with a loaded gun in their house.