Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Let's call them what they are: [View all]Sancho
(9,103 posts)117. The book is by a legal scholar...here's some more...there are many cases...it's legal.
There's no right for dangerous people and children to have any guns they want. There's no "2nd Amendment" claus that dictates the method to restrict guns. Simple. Read the book...and the references in the book. You'll see. Even Scalia admitted restrictions were legal on guns.
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/24/bullet-initiative-354203.html
Americans Don't Have the Right to Bear Just Any Arms
* Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds.
* Adopt rules that make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms.
* Outlaw the public display of weapons.
* Allow the concealed carry of guns using the shall issue standard.
* Stop trying to ban scary-looking add-ons that primarily protect the shooter, but dont make the gun more dangerous to others.
* Forget attacks on the armor-piercing bullets.
* Abandon efforts to outlaw assault weaponsa politically loaded phrase with a mishmash of meanings that pretty much amount to nothing.
Scalia clearly stated in Heller that the right to bear arms had boundaries. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, he wrote. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, he cited laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or that forbid them in places such as schools and government buildings, or impose conditions on their sale. He also wrote that his decision did not overrule the holding in the 1939 Miller ruling that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time, and that the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons was still permissible.
In other words, even one of the modern eras most conservative justices says gun enthusiasts are wrong when they claim that any limitation on firearms is unconstitutional. Government can place restrictions on firearms with the intent of protecting society.
Unfortunately, the NRA has been working for years to make sure lunatics and felons can obtain guns as easily as possible. After the deadliest shooting in American history took place at Virginia Tech (32 dead), Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. When introduced, the legislation called on states to submit mental-health records to national databases maintained by the FBI. The NRA declared this violated the Second Amendment and, through intense lobbying, limited the definition of mental illness only to people institutionalized or found by a court to be a danger. Even if a psychiatrist believed a patient posed a threat, nothing could be done to keep a gun out of that persons hand.
* Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds.
* Adopt rules that make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms.
* Outlaw the public display of weapons.
* Allow the concealed carry of guns using the shall issue standard.
* Stop trying to ban scary-looking add-ons that primarily protect the shooter, but dont make the gun more dangerous to others.
* Forget attacks on the armor-piercing bullets.
* Abandon efforts to outlaw assault weaponsa politically loaded phrase with a mishmash of meanings that pretty much amount to nothing.
Scalia clearly stated in Heller that the right to bear arms had boundaries. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, he wrote. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, he cited laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or that forbid them in places such as schools and government buildings, or impose conditions on their sale. He also wrote that his decision did not overrule the holding in the 1939 Miller ruling that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time, and that the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons was still permissible.
In other words, even one of the modern eras most conservative justices says gun enthusiasts are wrong when they claim that any limitation on firearms is unconstitutional. Government can place restrictions on firearms with the intent of protecting society.
Unfortunately, the NRA has been working for years to make sure lunatics and felons can obtain guns as easily as possible. After the deadliest shooting in American history took place at Virginia Tech (32 dead), Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. When introduced, the legislation called on states to submit mental-health records to national databases maintained by the FBI. The NRA declared this violated the Second Amendment and, through intense lobbying, limited the definition of mental illness only to people institutionalized or found by a court to be a danger. Even if a psychiatrist believed a patient posed a threat, nothing could be done to keep a gun out of that persons hand.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
144 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I can appreciate your thoughts on these matters. But this is a culture war...
Eleanors38
Jul 2016
#1
Really? God that's pathetic. How far will gun people go to defend their fetish.
flamin lib
Aug 2016
#19
Jerry Miculek, a professional athlete widely regarded as the fastest shooter in the world,
benEzra
Aug 2016
#76
Trench warfare was a thing of the past by the time the M1 was developed (late 1930's)
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#94
That's what I was wondering. By the time the M1 was adopted, the Army was concentrating...
Marengo
Aug 2016
#95
I've only seen the term used to describe combat shotguns. I'd like to understand the context...
Marengo
Aug 2016
#97
Yeah, 8 vs 10 rounds per clip. Was mixing Enfield with Garand. Thanks for the correction. nt
flamin lib
Aug 2016
#24
The M1 is clip fed, whereas the Enfield is magazine fed. There really isn't any excuse...
Marengo
Aug 2016
#31
"I daresay that I know more about guns...than most gun nuts here on DU"
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#34
Only for bonefide gun nutz. The clip on the M1 is a box loaded outside the rifle.
flamin lib
Aug 2016
#38
No, this is basic technical terminology which someone of your supposed expertise...
Marengo
Aug 2016
#46
What "losing argument"? Correcting your erroneous terminology? It's extremely difficult for me...
Marengo
Aug 2016
#49
You're still deflecting and attacking me instead of addressing the basic premise. nt
flamin lib
Aug 2016
#65
I'm addressing your self professed status as someone highly knowledgeable of firearms...
Marengo
Aug 2016
#85
"If YOU don't understand the internal mechanisms of assault weapons I suggest that you are...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#67
In that particular venue, the Orlando shooter could have shot 103 people with a full-sized pistol,
benEzra
Aug 2016
#79
You're likely right, but I am genuinely curious having owned several M1s over the years...
Marengo
Aug 2016
#142
Because it's an "Evil Scary Gun Term", and "assault weapon" was already taken....
benEzra
Aug 2016
#143
155gr .30-06 is still trading velocity for long range and penetration. Try 110gr.
benEzra
Aug 2016
#33
6mm Remington "worked OK" (in your words) at U Texas. 9mm "worked OK" (again your words) at VT.
benEzra
Aug 2016
#43
Weight is a big issue now, but that was less of an criterion before body armor was general-issue.
benEzra
Aug 2016
#81
The red herrings and deflection in this thread are not coming from your interlocutors:
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#68
"At a time of increasing gun violence in America" Gun crime has decreased markedly in the US
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#106
How can gun violence not be a crime, unless one counts paper targets, clay pigeons...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#108
The *number of media accounts* is on the rise, not the rate. That is what is declining.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#111
You were talking about a license to own, not a license to carry. Big difference.
beevul
Aug 2016
#113
The book is by a legal scholar...here's some more...there are many cases...it's legal.
Sancho
Aug 2016
#117
Not desiring prior restraint on an enumerated right =/= "(a) desire to allow dangerous people...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#126
I have no problem with carry permits so long as they are given on an objective basis...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#130
Your licensing proposal is flawed, IMO, because of the idea "you can have one IF...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#134
How would you get the gun control lobby to sign up to that, or be constrained by it?
benEzra
Aug 2016
#137
All civilian repeating firearms have the ability to kill a lot of people if misused.
benEzra
Aug 2016
#83