L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I lived in Switzerland for ten years. Some of the men in my building were in the Swiss Army. They do NOT keep their guns at home.
- Status
The fact that the weapons were used for illegal means, does not mean these tools should be illegal.
Hunting is not the reason for the constitutionally protected of the human and civil right to keep and bear arms. The founders were clear that the right has to do with defending a free state from tyranny, both foreign and domestic.
**“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” ** - Noah Webster
Muskets are not mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I don’t think anyone believes that newspapers shouldn’t be allowed to use computers because the founders didn’t have computers in mind when they penned the 1st amendment. Neither is it logical to construe the 2nd amendment to be limited to the technology of the time.
Jon
G
Gorgias
Guest
The BBC disagrees with you. Perhaps you should tell them – or the members of the Swiss Army they interviewed – that they’re mistaken.
Identify the extremist, grant him his due process rights, adjudicate him, then restrict his constitutionally protected right if convicted.
It is really quite straight forward. Enumerated individual rights in the United States cannot be confiscated by the government without due process. Enumerated individual rights cannot be confiscated from all the people, or even infringed upon, because of the illegal actions of one, or a few.
Jon
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Well, we have the right to bear arms, so we SHOULD be able to go out and buy a grenade launcher, a Stinger missile, or a nuclear warhead. Where do we draw the line? Someone might need one for “self-defense.” They are “arms” and we have the right to bear arms.No, but it is exposing your biases.
They’re semi-automatic (i.e., self-loading) rifles. So, then: “assault rifles” doesn’t really mean fully automatic rifles (e.g., machine guns), but even semi-automatics? Right. That’s what we thought. You’re advocating that a whole range of legal hunting rifles and self-defense rifles (let alone handguns) be made illegal. Thanks for clearing that up.
Red herring. Hunting isn’t the only legal purpose to own a firearm. Self-defense is, too. Black Talon – and other hollow-point ammo – is meant for self-defense, which is a legal use of firearms. Care to try again?
Says you. However, that’s not what the Founding Fathers actually wrote. If they meant ‘muskets’, why didn’t they write “the right of the people to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed”? Moreover, are you advocating for strict ‘original intent’? If so, then – given the text of the documents – there’s quite a bit of law on the books that you’re implicitly saying is unwarranted. If you really believe in ‘original intent’, then you can’t be for gun control.
I’m a non-violent person with no known enemies, so I don’t believe anyone is “gunning” for me. I don’t feel the need for a gun. My home is very secure, I live on the 25th floor. It would take Spiderman to break in here.
However, I do “sort of” fear Iran and North Korea. I want to protect myself against them. I think I’ll see about buying a nuclear warhead. I’m sure some country would sell me one. Money, unfortunately, talks, and I DO have the right to bear arms.
G
Gorgias
Guest
And this is where the rubber meets the road. It’s not about firearm ownership, it’s about the definition of who’s an ‘extremist’. Gun control doesn’t target ‘extremists’, it targets all ‘gun owners’.
The vast majority of firearms owners – for hunting, for self-defense, for target shooting – don’t want to give you the opportunity to label them as ‘extremists’. Sorry.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
We ALL know: If it’s on the Internet it HAS to be true. No one doubts that.The BBC disagrees with you. Perhaps you should tell them – or the members of the Swiss Army they interviewed – that they’re mistaken.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Well one of our mottos is “peace, order and good government”. The only time in my lifetime that our constitional rights were abriged was during the War Measures Act in 1970 when a handful of Quebec separatists resorted to violence and terrorism for their cause. That was by the father of our current PM. It was and remains a controversial decision, but it stopped the problem cold and was temporary. The current Bill C-51 to combat terrorism is also controversial, and I expect the new government to revise it even though they supported it. If not, it will certainly be tested in the courts.
I think we just come from different historical perspectives. We don’t see gun ownership as an absolute right. I’m diabetic and every 5 years I have to file a medical report to keep my driver’s licence, and it’s every year for my pilot’s licence with additional tests beyond the basic pilot medical. I don’t see a problem with restricting gun ownership from those who have mental or physical disabilities, such as poor eyesight or a diagnosis of mental ilness, from gun ownership. I often wonder if the U.S. wouldn’t be a safer place without such an absolutist approach.
T
Theo520
Guest
You appear to be projecting that the AR15 is more dangerous because it looks scary.
As an experienced shooter, you should know it’s not full auto, and its basic single shot performance doesn’t vary from most hunting rifles. If anything the .223 ammo is not sufficiently lethal to hunt large game. No experienced hunter would recommend using it on elk, bear, moose or any other large game.
Talon Ammo is not intrinsically more lethal than any other hollow point ammo. Any Teflon coating is added to reduce barrel friction only, it extends the life of the barrel but doesn’t improve penetration or make it armor piercing. Armor piercing ammo is designed completely different than hollow point ammo.
Talon Ammo most definitely doesn’t cause collateral damage like you indicated. Interestingly, this ammo is frequently used by law enforcement against us civilians
The records show the most lethal caliber has been the simple 22. This is probably because it’s the easiest to hit your target with… Is this what you shot when competing?
G
Gorgias
Guest
That’s a case for you personally to make a decision for yourself not to own a firearm; not a case for you to forbid others – who don’t live in secure environments on 25th floors, with only Spiderman access – from owning firearms.
I’m thinking that, if you want to make a reasonable case for gun control, you might want to avoid hyperbole. At the very least, make the case for a particular kind of measures that reasonable people are willing to discuss. No one is making the case for personal ownership of nuclear weapons. But – as I’ve said before – I don’t want to let facts and logic get in the way of a really good emotional irrational tirade.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Consider what the Continental militia did. It rebelled against the government.
AR-15s that one can buy without a special lisence are no different in function from a deer rifle. They’re just smaller caliber (for the most part) and easier to carry. Black Talon ammunition is no longer manufactured, and hasn’t been for 10 years or more. But there are plenty of similar cartridges. All a Black Talon is, is a hollow point with little cuts in the metal jacket which (they say) allows it to expand more readily. But all hollow points do that, as do soft lead bullets. If you ever saw what a standard soft lead minie ball does to a gel block, you would probably think it a worse load than the present analog to a Black Talon.
Now, a person can buy a fully automatic gun, contrary to popular belief. It’s just difficult and expensive for a law-abiding citizen. Criminals, of course, can get them from abroad, and do, just as they can get their drugs into this country most of the time.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
It’s not about who’s an extremist to me. It’s about the fact that ordinary people do NOT need high-powered assault rifles. It’s beyond ridiculous. People who hunt, need a weapon for self-defense, or target shooting do NOT need high-powered assault rifles.And this is where the rubber meets the road. It’s not about firearm ownership, it’s about the definition of who’s an ‘extremist’. Gun control doesn’t target ‘extremists’, it targets all ‘gun owners’.
The vast majority of firearms owners – for hunting, for self-defense, for target shooting – don’t want to give you the opportunity to label them as ‘extremists’. Sorry.
Now, I’m going out to see about my nuclear warhead, which falls under the category of “arms” and the constitution gives me the right to own one to protect myself against North Korea. Well, under the constitution, I don’t even need a reason.
G
Gorgias
Guest
LOL!
Wait: you really want to assert that your anecdotal experience (which, if you haven’t noticed the irony, is just something that’s “on the internet”) trumps the reporting of the BBC and the statements of members of the Swiss Army?
Really?
G
Gorgias
Guest
See…? There you go again: hiding behind the imprecise “assault rifle” tag; taking your personal opinion and asserting that it should hold for all people with the force of law; and painting those who own semi-auto rifles as not “ordinary”. Sad. Just… sad. :sad_yes:
O
OraLabora
Guest
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Apparently the Canadian constitution does not provide a right to bear arms. Ours does.
What physical disabilities do you want to disqualify a person from having a gun? As to eyesight, how bad does it have to be?
And what mental illness do you think should be disqualifying? Where do you draw the line on that; anything in the DSM?
Lots of things go into homicide rates. Mexico, for example, has massively more restrictive gun laws than the U.S., yet the gun homicide rate is a lot higher in the Mexico. There is actually no demonstrable correlation from state to state between gun homicide rates and gun ownership or restrictive nature of gun laws. Some U.S. states have very high ownership rates and lower gun homicide rates than in Europe. Some states have very restrictive gun laws and much higher gun homicide rates.
Now and then, as we know, some crazy person will shoot some people. We all wonder, on such occasions, why that person a) had access to a gun, and b) wasn’t institutionalized. As to a) some of them were in very restrictive states, and as to b) it’s incredibly difficult to get people institutionalized in the U.S., almost no matter how crazy they are.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Oh, believe me, after the years I spent in the NRA with my uncle, no gun LOOKS “scary” to me.You appear to be projecting that the AR15 is more dangerous because it looks scary.
As an experienced shooter, you should know its basic single shot performance doesn’t vary from most hunting rifles. If anything the .223 ammo is not sufficiently lethal to hunt large game. No experienced hunter would recommend using it on elk, bear, moose or any other large game.
Talon Ammo is not intrinsically more lethal than any other hollow point ammo. Any Teflon coating is added to reduce barrel friction only, it doesn’t improve penetration or make it armor piercing. Talon Ammo most definitely doesn’t cause collateral damage like you indicated. Interestingly, this ammo is frequently used by law enforcement against us civilians
The records show the most lethal caliber has been the simple 22. This is probably because it’s the easiest to hit your target with… Is this what you shot when competing?
I’ve used everything - a 22 a 30.06 and more I want to forget.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
Well, sure. Also the professionally-trained (by Prussians) Continental Army, and Spanish and French naval and ground forces. . .
It’s kind of a myth that a bunch of citizen-soldiers defeated the great British military machine.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I’m not even going to click on the link. As I said, we ALL know if it’s on the Internet, it HAS to be true, and no more so than Wikipedia, which anyone can edit. I could go on there now and change anything it says.
Maybe some people in the Swiss Army keep their weapons at home, but the ones I knew for ten years did not.
It is quite rare for any American to own a “high-powered assault rifle” (for which no definition is given). Assuming an assault rifle is automatic, they are not easy or inexpensive to obtain.It’s not about who’s an extremist to me. It’s about the fact that ordinary people do NOT need high-powered assault rifles. It’s beyond ridiculous. People who hunt, need a weapon for self-defense, or target shooting do NOT need high-powered assault rifles.
Now, I’m going out to see about my nuclear warhead, which falls under the category of “arms” and the constitution gives me the right to own one to protect myself against North Korea. Well, under the constitution, I don’t even need a reason.
An AR-15, for example, is no different, other than cosmetically, than a modern hunting rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is not a military rifle.
Jon
- Status