Mass shooting

[Guest Derek L]

Where in the constitution does it state that I can''t have a suitcase nuke?

It doesn’t………..but numerous laws since state that you can’t.

[GostHacked]

It doesn’t………..but numerous laws since state that you can’t.

More laws can even restrict further, completely marginalizing the constitution. I would say throw it to a national vote to redefine that 2nd Amendment. Right to bear arms and restrict or ban WMDs. Have every person in the USA vote on it, not the politicians who don't even read every bill that is rammed through the congress/senate.

[Guest Derek L]

More laws can even restrict further, completely marginalizing the constitution. I would say throw it to a national vote to redefine that 2nd Amendment. Right to bear arms and restrict or ban WMDs. Have every person in the USA vote on it, not the politicians who don't even read every bill that is rammed through the congress/senate.

Well no, when it comes to explosive devices, be they the aforementioned nuke, dynamite or fire works etc, their transportation , storage and inherent stability (And degradation with time), devoid of malicious intent, unlike say a Glock or an AR-15, can pose a public safety concern………

In other words, if my house burnt down and was filled with firearms, that would not pose a greater threat to my neighbours or the firefighters………Now if it were filled with dynamite, that’s another storey…….

[dre]

This comparison to car accidents to shootings is pretty silly... Like Guns motor vehicles can cause a lot of damage to people and property which is why every vehicle on the road is insured, and vehicle owners have to carry about a million dollars in liability insurance.

If you want to use this analogy then fine... lets have the same rules for guns that we have for motor vehicles.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not even close...every vehicle on the road is not insured and owners who have coverage do not have to carry $1 million liability policies. That's why there is uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Many home/property owners insurance policies provide all the needed liability coverage for gun related and many other possible mishaps.

[Guest Derek L]

This comparison to car accidents to shootings is pretty silly... Like Guns motor vehicles can cause a lot of damage to people and property which is why every vehicle on the road is insured, and vehicle owners have to carry about a million dollars in liability insurance.

If you want to use this analogy then fine... lets have the same rules for guns that we have for motor vehicles.

Like I asked prior........Is a victim of a speeder or drunk any less dead then a victim of a shooter?

And vehicles don’t have to be insured, nor the owner licensed if they’re sitting in your driveway…………..So perhaps if firearms are only used on private property, there should be no reason to require the owner to have a licence?

[Guest Derek L]

Not even close...every vehicle on the road is not insured and owners who have coverage do not have to carry $1 million liability policies. That's why there is uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Many home/property owners insurance policies provide all the needed liability coverage for gun related and many other possible mishaps.

Yup………I get my liability insurance, good for anywhere in Canada and the United States, covering everything firearms related, through my gun club for an additional $30 a year……..Never thought to check my homeowners policy.........I know theft is covered.

[bush_cheney2004]

Guns and gun ownership are completely integrated into society's legal and commercial frameworks. Not surprising since they have been around for a very long time. Requirements for legal possession, transport, discharge, sale, storage, etc. are all well defined. Guns are very, very old friends.

[eyeball]

What if the shooter is criminally insane, hence not deemed responsible for his/her actions? Is that better then a “sane” person the knows and understands full well the laws pertaining to driving impaired and/or speeding, chooses to break them anyways, and kills someone?

Yes, it's better because treatment is prescribed for the former as opposed to punishment for the latter.

Punishment for both would be worse.

[eyeball]

Now couple the definition of bear with Cybercoma’s definition of arms, and put into context of the 2nd amendment, it clearly states a person has the right to a weapon that they can carry and/or hold up………If the framers of the Constitution desired the individual to have larger armaments, they’d have added to said Amendment the right of the individual to have armaments that could be pulled by a team of draft horses

So shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles, flame-throwers and bazookas are all perfectly legal? Cool.

[bush_cheney2004]

[/size][/font][/color]

So shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles, flame-throwers and bazookas are all perfectly legal? Cool.

Shoulder fired ? Americans can own and launch much bigger missiles / rockets than that...this one weighs about 750 kilograms:

[WIP]

I don't visit here very often, but once in awhile I notice something new to add to the "they'll get my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands" thread.

Previously, we learned that the constantly trotted out claim by pro-gun advocates that 'Hitler banned guns in Germany' is a myth! We discovered a week ago when a historian sifted through the records that the Weimar Republic was the one which had the crackdown on German gun-ownership, and the Third Reich actually relaxed gun control laws.

And yesterday, I came across a piece liberal radio host - Tom Hartmann wrote for Alternet on the real issues behind that 2nd Amendment....which gun nuts consider more important than the first! It seems that there is a strong case to be made that the reason the 2nd Amendment was ratified was to get southern, slave-holding states on board with federation:

In the Beginning, there were the Militias. In the South, they were also called the “Slave Patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed Militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias, and even required armed Militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

For the rest of the article, go to: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/thom-hartmann-second-amendment-was-ratified-preserve-slavery?paging=off

This mania about having everyone walking around with a gun....guarding schools, movie theatres, carrying a gun in the car at all times, "Stand Your Ground" laws, have to be looked at through other lenses than the typical analysis of individual rights. Starting with Hartmann's piece about the origins of the militia movement, and tracking it through the slavery and post-reconstruction Jim Crow laws era, it's unmistakeable that the emphasis on guns for protection is about law-abiding, property-owning middle and upper income whites, defending themselves and their property against blacks and any other lower classes looking to steal or rob them.

For some reason, the path to legitimate gun ownership doesn't move as smoothly in the most dangerous inner cities where you would expect the highest gun ownership and the greatest demand for guns! Blacks and latinos have lower rates of gun ownership than whites, and poor people who have to live in the places where crime poses a real threat, rather than imagined hysteria, also have fewer guns. Gun ownership still skews towards wealth and whiteness.....just as it did in 1755.

[WIP]

I don't go to CNN very often for news and analysis, but I recalled hearing about this a few months ago:

Analysis: Fewer U.S. gun owners own more guns

(CNN)

-- A decreasing number of American gun owners own two-thirds of the nation's guns and as many as one-third of the guns on the planet -- even though they account for less than 1% of the world's population, according to a CNN analysis of gun ownership data.

The data, collected by the Injury Prevention Journal, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the General Social Survey and population figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, found that the number of U.S. households with guns has declined, but current gun owners are gathering more guns.

Yes, that ought to make everyone feel a little more secure! Fewer gun owners, with the guns being more concentrated among the nuts who already have too many to start with, and are looking to 'stand their ground' and shoot anything they see moving out in the bushes! And the NRA declined the opportunity to comment and explain why their rhetoric about the growth in gun-ownership is a sham:

"We asked, 'Where'd the guns go?' The answer -- it looked like the people that had lots of guns were buying more guns," Hemenway said.

The false perception that there are more gun owners has helped bolster a political narrative, emboldened the National Rifle Association and left politicians worried about losing support, gun policy experts say.

"...It gives them more power to say they are representing more gun owners and there are more gun owners," said Hemenway.

Sugarmann agreed. "There is a myth pushed by the gun industry, the NRA and the trade associations for gun makers that gun ownership is up," he said. "[That] there are more gun owners, when the opposite is true, gun ownership is declining."

The NRA did not respond to repeated requests from CNN for comment.

[WIP]

And finally, the NRA really doubled down on the stupid yesterday when they put Obama's children in their gun rhetoric:

http://nrastandandfight.com/

[bush_cheney2004]

......Gun ownership still skews towards wealth and whiteness.....just as it did in 1755.

...and just as it does in Canada...today.

[punked]

...and just as it does in Canada...today.

I think the Percentage of Aboriginals with gun in Canada is quite high.

[Guest Derek L]

[/size][/font][/color]

So shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles, flame-throwers and bazookas are all perfectly legal? Cool.

Flamethrowers aren’t illegal in the US or Canada, but in some States/Provinces you’ll need a permit…….And are used frequently in the forestry industry for burning slash and controlled burns….Same with “Willie Pete”……….And Rocket launchers are legal in both the United States and Canada, the munitions are what are restricted due to, like I mentioned above, the explosives………People even in Canada can legally purchase a Grenade Launcher attachment for an AR-15 and use flare rounds…….At the local gun show on Sunday, one fellow had a WW II era PIAT launcher for sale, and you will see every once and a while empty LAW tubes…..

[Guest Derek L]

...and just as it does in Canada...today.

Wealth I can see, guns and ammo are expensive, but you go to any shooting range in the lower mainland of BC, and the shooters are just as diverse as the local community ……….One of the local ranges, 2/3rds of the executive of the club and range officers are Chinese and Filipino………..And those on a budget, can always buy very cheap Chinese guns made by Norinco, the largest gun manufacture in the world……..I welcome new Canadians to the sport, as many are very enthusiastic since they have come from countries they couldn’t own guns.

[Guest Derek L]

I think the Percentage of Aboriginals with gun in Canada is quite high.

You bet........Up into the last couple of decades, the Government would supply to many bands/nations old surplus SMLE's and all the .303 brass they could use, namely for hunting.

[The_Squid]

Should the 2nd amendment cover automatic weapons?

If it is reasonable to restrict those, then why not large capacity magazines and assault weapons?

Switchblades are illegal in many states where one can carry a concealed handgun! Haha. Nutso....

[Guest Derek L]

Should the 2nd amendment cover automatic weapons?

If it is reasonable to restrict those, then why not large capacity magazines and assault weapons?

Switchblades are illegal in many states where one can carry a concealed handgun! Haha. Nutso....

You can buy automatic weapons in the United States…………perfectly legal………Just bring lots of money………And assault weapons are fully automatic, select fire rifles……..AR-15s aren’t assault weapons.

You could own your very own MP40 down South for anywhere between 20-25k:

[The_Squid]

You know that they are restricted and not easily accessible like other guns are, don't you?

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

2nd amendment be damned.... automatic weapons are restricted. So, why can't assault type weapons and high capacity magazines be restricted as well?

[bush_cheney2004]

2nd amendment be damned.... automatic weapons are restricted. So, why can't assault type weapons and high capacity magazines be restricted as well?

They were...for ten years...then the law expired. Any questions ?

[The_Squid]

Should automatic weapons be covered by the 2nd amendment and be allowed?

[bush_cheney2004]

Should automatic weapons be covered by the 2nd amendment and be allowed?

They are covered, with ownership regulated by federal law. There is a fully operational M2 "Ma Deuce" machine gun at my local shooting range.

http://www.cga.ct.go...2009-R-0020.htm

Edited January 17, 2013 by bush_cheney2004