Yet another school shooting- man disarmed while reloading

[Deleted]

How about you prove your opinion first. You say it's NOT a factor... where's your studies?

(For the record, I can back up my stance... I just want to see you try to back up yours)



I'll give you one in my defense to start with though...

"After a shooting spree," author William Burroughs once said, "they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." Burroughs continued: "I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."

Plenty of people — especially among America's political and journalistic classes — feel differently. They'd be much more comfortable seeing ordinary Americans disarmed. And whenever there is a mass shooting, or other gun incident that snags the headlines, they do their best to exploit the tragedy and push for laws that would, well, take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.

There are a lot of problems with this approach, but one of the most significant is this one: It doesn't work. One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well.

--- Source: USA Today

Yes, the above piece is an opinion... BUT... it contains a link to a downloadable study. Download and read the study... if you want.

[EVT1]

You make the claim you back it up- you have nothing.

I do not have to prove that 'gun free zones' are not targeted- you have to prove they are.

And it is a sorry bullshit excuse from the king of laying blame the NRA.

Are you really going to say out of one side of your mouth that it isn't guns or gun laws that are the problem, that the real responsibility lies with the shooter, and turn around and blame gun laws for the death toll? That's some blatant partisan bullshit if I ever saw it.

[Deleted]

So... In other words you can't back up your spurious claim.

Thought so.

[truthbound]

Why. Why does this have to happen?

Because there are humans breathing air. As long as they exist there will always be violence.

[Deleted]

Jun 13, 2014 18:16:11 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jun 13, 2014 11:39:38 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

"Probably directly responsible" ? That's the facts ?

Well OK it requires an assumption- that when someone decides to commit mass murder they will want to have the best tools for the job possible. They usually do so it is a fair assumption to make.

The fact that these people get taken out on reload many times, or when the guns jam, or other pause giving a window for people to act, makes it a no brainer that we need to ban these high capacity devices.

No matter how you slice it- telling someone they cannot purchase a 100-300 round drum for an assault rifle is not infringing on their right to bear arms anymore than telling them they cannot buy a rocket launcher or machine gun. 

There is no legitimate purpose for them.

 

An assault rifle is a machine gun that is switchable to single fire and has been illegal to own without a special Federal license since 1938. I've emptied a 40 round magazine on several occasions while hunting feral pigs on my property. Do you know of any mass killings in the US where they used a 100 to 300 round magazine ?

[EVT1]

Aurora CO 100 round drum magazine- for starters.  Sandy hook- 30 rounder, Tuscon 30 rounder- tackled while reloading, Ft. Hood, come to mind.

These things are the go to devices when available, plain and simple.

Perhaps the real question is what the hell anyone needs with a 30,50,100, etc. round magazine?  Why are they even sold?

And 'Cuz it's mah right' doesn't cut it with me.  NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE.

 

[Deleted]

Jun 17, 2014 12:19:34 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aurora CO 100 round drum magazine- for starters.  Sandy hook- 30 rounder, Tuscon 30 rounder- tackled while reloading, Ft. Hood, come to mind.

These things are the go to devices when available, plain and simple.

Perhaps the real question is what the hell anyone needs with a 30,50,100, etc. round magazine?  Why are they even sold?

And 'Cuz it's mah right' doesn't cut it with me.  NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE.

 

So only 1 mass killing where a 100 round magazine was used. No 300 rounders as you stated ? That's going to be a tough sell for passing a law over 300+ million people. (If you don't quote my posts, I will often miss your replies to my posts as I go by the notifications first in my limited time here. )

[EVT1]

Jun 17, 2014 12:59:05 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Jun 17, 2014 12:19:34 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aurora CO 100 round drum magazine- for starters.  Sandy hook- 30 rounder, Tuscon 30 rounder- tackled while reloading, Ft. Hood, come to mind.

These things are the go to devices when available, plain and simple.

Perhaps the real question is what the hell anyone needs with a 30,50,100, etc. round magazine?  Why are they even sold?

And 'Cuz it's mah right' doesn't cut it with me.  NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE.

 

So only 1 mass killing where a 100 round magazine was used. No 300 rounders as you stated ? That's going to be a tough sell for passing a law over 300+ million people. (If you don't quote my posts, I will often miss your replies to my posts as I go by the notifications first in my limited time here. )

Why a tough sell- other than the NRA opposition?  Have you ever bought one?  Have any need?

My largest magazine is a 12 rounder for my Sig.  I doubt I could even shoot it correctly with a 30 round mag in it- so not good for target shooting, not good for self defense, what good is it other than spraying a crowd with bullets?

I make one allowance- maybe it is fun sometimes.  I think we can live without that- if you want fun go the range and shoot a full auto.  Mass killers do not need this kind of hardware on the shelf.

[Deleted]

Jun 17, 2014 13:12:06 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jun 17, 2014 12:59:05 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

So only 1 mass killing where a 100 round magazine was used. No 300 rounders as you stated ? That's going to be a tough sell for passing a law over 300+ million people. (If you don't quote my posts, I will often miss your replies to my posts as I go by the notifications first in my limited time here. )

Why a tough sell- other than the NRA opposition?  Have you ever bought one?  Have any need?

My largest magazine is a 12 rounder for my Sig.  I doubt I could even shoot it correctly with a 30 round mag in it- so not good for target shooting, not good for self defense, what good is it other than spraying a crowd with bullets?

I make one allowance- maybe it is fun sometimes.  I think we can live without that- if you want fun go the range and shoot a full auto.  Mass killers do not need this kind of hardware on the shelf.

Your Sig is a semi auto handgun ? I only have one semi auto handgun (.22)  with scope and laser used for small game hunting and small varmints. It has the standard 10 round magazine plus one spare it came with. All self defense handguns are .38 cal. revolvers using +P+ ammo. I have two semi auto rifles that have 40 round magazines and use them for varmint hunting (feral pigs). They come up the creek from the White river and move in larger groups. They'll really tear up your land if you let them. It only happens once every couple of years. My DW really is effective on the pig hunts. I've seen her take down 7-10 pigs in just a few seconds. Like shooting fish in a barrel, or pigs in a ravine. I have a lot of other guns, but that's all you asked about.

[EVT1]

Jun 20, 2014 11:56:08 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Jun 17, 2014 13:12:06 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Why a tough sell- other than the NRA opposition?  Have you ever bought one?  Have any need?

My largest magazine is a 12 rounder for my Sig.  I doubt I could even shoot it correctly with a 30 round mag in it- so not good for target shooting, not good for self defense, what good is it other than spraying a crowd with bullets?

I make one allowance- maybe it is fun sometimes.  I think we can live without that- if you want fun go the range and shoot a full auto.  Mass killers do not need this kind of hardware on the shelf.

Your Sig is a semi auto handgun ? I only have one semi auto handgun (.22)  with scope and laser used for small game hunting and small varmints. It has the standard 10 round magazine plus one spare it came with. All self defense handguns are .38 cal. revolvers using +P+ ammo. I have two semi auto rifles that have 40 round magazines and use them for varmint hunting (feral pigs). They come up the creek from the White river and move in larger groups. They'll really tear up your land if you let them. It only happens once every couple of years. My DW really is effective on the pig hunts. I've seen her take down 7-10 pigs in just a few seconds. Like shooting fish in a barrel, or pigs in a ravine. I have a lot of other guns, but that's all you asked about.

Y- my Sig is a P229- I can shoot .40 or .357sig depending on which barrel I put in it. 

I have a .22 Colt pistol (revolver) and a Winchester .22 pump rifle- my favorites to plink with.

The only semi auto rifle I own is a .30-06 Remington.  Haven't shot it in at least 25 years.  I do have a semi-auto 12ga.

I do have a .38 special but my home defense weapon is a cheapo Mossberg pump 12GA with a pistol grip

Have a couple tiny carry guns if I feel the need- an old AMT .380, and my favorite a Bersa Thunder CC .380

Don't want to hear any stopping power bullshit either

I have a lot of other guns as well- haven't walked into Starbucks with any of them either.

[frankq]

Two years later, officers responded again - this time finding him lying in the middle of the street in front of his suburban Mountlake Terrace home, ranting drunkenly for a SWAT team "to get him and make him famous."

Maybe part of the answer is right here. Lets stop making these assholes famous.....Are you listening over there at CNN?

[frankq]

Jun 17, 2014 12:19:34 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aurora CO 100 round drum magazine- for starters.  Sandy hook- 30 rounder, Tuscon 30 rounder- tackled while reloading, Ft. Hood, come to mind.

These things are the go to devices when available, plain and simple.

Perhaps the real question is what the hell anyone needs with a 30,50,100, etc. round magazine?  Why are they even sold?

And 'Cuz it's mah right' doesn't cut it with me.  NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE.

 

Actually, the handgun seems to be the weapon of choice. So called "assault weapons are used in very few incidents....

washingtonexaminer.com/crime-study-handguns-not-assault-rifles-used-in-most-mass-shootings/article/2542118

www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

And according to the government/FBI source above, hands, feet and fists account for 2 1/2 times the killings as ALL rifles. Rifles account for roughly 2% of fatalities. And only a small fraction of those rifles are the ones you so vehemently insist are the weapons of choice. Apparently, these things aren't quite the "go to" devices you represent them to be.....But then again, I wouldn't actually expect you to actually research this stuff. Thankfully, we don't have to concern ourselves with passing the "cut it with you" test when making our choices.

[EVT1]

Jun 21, 2014 13:26:40 GMT -5 frankq said:

Jun 17, 2014 12:19:34 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aurora CO 100 round drum magazine- for starters.  Sandy hook- 30 rounder, Tuscon 30 rounder- tackled while reloading, Ft. Hood, come to mind.

These things are the go to devices when available, plain and simple.

Perhaps the real question is what the hell anyone needs with a 30,50,100, etc. round magazine?  Why are they even sold?

And 'Cuz it's mah right' doesn't cut it with me.  NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE.

 

Actually, the handgun seems to be the weapon of choice. So called "assault weapons are used in very few incidents....

washingtonexaminer.com/crime-study-handguns-not-assault-rifles-used-in-most-mass-shootings/article/2542118

www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

And according to the government/FBI source above, hands, feet and fists account for 2 1/2 times the killings as ALL rifles. Rifles account for roughly 2% of fatalities. And only a small fraction of those rifles are the ones you so vehemently insist are the weapons of choice. Apparently, these things aren't quite the "go to" devices you represent them to be.....But then again, I wouldn't actually expect you to actually research this stuff. Thankfully, we don't have to concern ourselves with passing the "cut it with you" test when making our choices.

I am well aware of that fact- yet you confused my criticism of high capacity magazines with an attack against "assault rifles". 

And they are absolutely the go-to devices.  That's the common denominator in most of these mass shootings- lots of ammo jammed into the largest devices available.  I guess you can't see how some of these incidents were limited by local laws and the inability to obtain more firepower. 

Complete the NRA wet dream and put machine guns on the shelf at Wal-Mart- and you tell me- is the next mass-shooter going to get one if they can or just grab a derringer?

I don't even see the argument keeping them legal- they have no purpose.

[frankq]

Jun 21, 2014 14:15:14 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jun 21, 2014 13:26:40 GMT -5 frankq said:

Actually, the handgun seems to be the weapon of choice. So called "assault weapons are used in very few incidents....

washingtonexaminer.com/crime-study-handguns-not-assault-rifles-used-in-most-mass-shootings/article/2542118

www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

And according to the government/FBI source above, hands, feet and fists account for 2 1/2 times the killings as ALL rifles. Rifles account for roughly 2% of fatalities. And only a small fraction of those rifles are the ones you so vehemently insist are the weapons of choice. Apparently, these things aren't quite the "go to" devices you represent them to be.....But then again, I wouldn't actually expect you to actually research this stuff. Thankfully, we don't have to concern ourselves with passing the "cut it with you" test when making our choices.

I am well aware of that fact- yet you confused my criticism of high capacity magazines with an attack against "assault rifles". 

And they are absolutely the go-to devices.  That's the common denominator in most of these mass shootings- lots of ammo jammed into the largest devices available.  I guess you can't see how some of these incidents were limited by local laws and the inability to obtain more firepower. 

Complete the NRA wet dream and put machine guns on the shelf at Wal-Mart- and you tell me- is the next mass-shooter going to get one if they can or just grab a derringer?

I don't even see the argument keeping them legal- they have no purpose.

There are a bunch of people in California that were killed with a pistol and a BMW. It is a fact that those pushing for a magazine ban have stated openly that it would be a good "first" step. They won't be happy until that Derringer you reference is a flintlock. Lets put a couple of cops at schools. The added benefits would include more that reduced or eliminated gun events, maybe there would be less drug crime in schools too....

[EVT1]

Maybe they won't but I will- and other gun owners share my view.  And we are the majority- the NRA loons are just a small, yet very noisy section.  We all have our limits on how far legislation should go.

I support police on campus- and I support having teachers armed if they are willing to complete the training- POST certified- not some run of the mill security guard bullshit.

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2014 14:15:14 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jun 21, 2014 13:26:40 GMT -5 frankq said:

Actually, the handgun seems to be the weapon of choice. So called "assault weapons are used in very few incidents....

washingtonexaminer.com/crime-study-handguns-not-assault-rifles-used-in-most-mass-shootings/article/2542118

www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

And according to the government/FBI source above, hands, feet and fists account for 2 1/2 times the killings as ALL rifles. Rifles account for roughly 2% of fatalities. And only a small fraction of those rifles are the ones you so vehemently insist are the weapons of choice. Apparently, these things aren't quite the "go to" devices you represent them to be.....But then again, I wouldn't actually expect you to actually research this stuff. Thankfully, we don't have to concern ourselves with passing the "cut it with you" test when making our choices.

I am well aware of that fact- yet you confused my criticism of high capacity magazines with an attack against "assault rifles". 

And they are absolutely the go-to devices.  That's the common denominator in most of these mass shootings- lots of ammo jammed into the largest devices available.  I guess you can't see how some of these incidents were limited by local laws and the inability to obtain more firepower. 

Complete the NRA wet dream and put machine guns on the shelf at Wal-Mart- and you tell me- is the next mass-shooter going to get one if they can or just grab a derringer?

I don't even see the argument keeping them legal- they have no purpose.

EVT, all guns are classified. An "assault rifle" is a full fledged machine gun that is switchable to semi auto use by the push of a lever or switch. they have been not available for sale to the general public since 1938. An "assault weapon" is the gun "style" that was banned for 10 years that ended not that long ago. All assault "weapons" are semi auto and once again legal for sale to any one. These are the guns you seem to hate with the availability of large capacity magazines. Not mislabeling those two will help your credibility. The big three major media ABC, CBS, and NBC will often confuse the two (on purpose or just ignorant?) showing machine guns being fired and calling them assault weapons. They're not. All one has to do is read either the assault weapon gun ban law and/or the old machine gun law for the correct terminology.

[EVT1]

Jun 23, 2014 8:09:18 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Jun 21, 2014 14:15:14 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I am well aware of that fact- yet you confused my criticism of high capacity magazines with an attack against "assault rifles". 

And they are absolutely the go-to devices.  That's the common denominator in most of these mass shootings- lots of ammo jammed into the largest devices available.  I guess you can't see how some of these incidents were limited by local laws and the inability to obtain more firepower. 

Complete the NRA wet dream and put machine guns on the shelf at Wal-Mart- and you tell me- is the next mass-shooter going to get one if they can or just grab a derringer?

I don't even see the argument keeping them legal- they have no purpose.

EVT, all guns are classified. An "assault rifle" is a full fledged machine gun that is switchable to semi auto use by the push of a lever or switch. they have been not available for sale to the general public since 1938. An "assault weapon" is the gun "style" that was banned for 10 years that ended not that long ago. All assault "weapons" are semi auto and once again legal for sale to any one. These are the guns you seem to hate with the availability of large capacity magazines. Not mislabeling those two will help your credibility. The big three major media ABC, CBS, and NBC will often confuse the two (on purpose or just ignorant?) showing machine guns being fired and calling them assault weapons. They're not. All one has to do is read either the assault weapon gun ban law and/or the old machine gun law for the correct terminology.

Umm- why are you telling me what I already know?  The term is used interchangeably now- I didn't do it.

And why do you think I have a problem with them?  I only have a problem with the magazines.  My .30-06 with the proper magazine would make one hell of a killing machine, could do a lot more damage than an AR-15, the current favorite of mass shooters.  My factory magazine holds I think 4 rounds, that's all you need and all that should be available.  Settle on a number and call it a day.  Wanna go 10- we can go 10.  But 30 is out of the question, and anything over 100 is freaking insane. 

As far as the "assault weapon" designation I could care less- trick it out any way you want- as long as after the 10 shots you have to reload.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2014 10:03:20 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jun 23, 2014 8:09:18 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

EVT, all guns are classified. An "assault rifle" is a full fledged machine gun that is switchable to semi auto use by the push of a lever or switch. they have been not available for sale to the general public since 1938. An "assault weapon" is the gun "style" that was banned for 10 years that ended not that long ago. All assault "weapons" are semi auto and once again legal for sale to any one. These are the guns you seem to hate with the availability of large capacity magazines. Not mislabeling those two will help your credibility. The big three major media ABC, CBS, and NBC will often confuse the two (on purpose or just ignorant?) showing machine guns being fired and calling them assault weapons. They're not. All one has to do is read either the assault weapon gun ban law and/or the old machine gun law for the correct terminology.

Umm- why are you telling me what I already know?  The term is used interchangeably now- I didn't do it.

And why do you think I have a problem with them?  I only have a problem with the magazines.  My .30-06 with the proper magazine would make one hell of a killing machine, could do a lot more damage than an AR-15, the current favorite of mass shooters.  My factory magazine holds I think 4 rounds, that's all you need and all that should be available.  Settle on a number and call it a day.  Wanna go 10- we can go 10.  But 30 is out of the question, and anything over 100 is freaking insane. 

As far as the "assault weapon" designation I could care less- trick it out any way you want- as long as after the 10 shots you have to reload.

Your missing my point, but that's OK by me. Everyone has different levels and subjects of education. The 30 round magazine should be considered a minimum size for an AR-15 as the weapon was designed for smaller caliber and longer sustained fire. If you don't like that, then don't buy it.

[EVT1]

Jun 23, 2014 11:49:17 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Jun 23, 2014 10:03:20 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Umm- why are you telling me what I already know?  The term is used interchangeably now- I didn't do it.

And why do you think I have a problem with them?  I only have a problem with the magazines.  My .30-06 with the proper magazine would make one hell of a killing machine, could do a lot more damage than an AR-15, the current favorite of mass shooters.  My factory magazine holds I think 4 rounds, that's all you need and all that should be available.  Settle on a number and call it a day.  Wanna go 10- we can go 10.  But 30 is out of the question, and anything over 100 is freaking insane. 

As far as the "assault weapon" designation I could care less- trick it out any way you want- as long as after the 10 shots you have to reload.

Your missing my point, but that's OK by me. Everyone has different levels and subjects of education. The 30 round magazine should be considered a minimum size for an AR-15 as the weapon was designed for smaller caliber and longer sustained fire. If you don't like that, then don't buy it.

And that's some bullshit right there- who cares what it was designed for (war).

There is no legitimate purpose in the civilian world that requires "longer sustained fire".  If is perfectly capable of firing one at a time and stopping at whatever limit the law might dictate.

And I won't buy one- I have no need for one.  A friend of mine did- shoots nice- like the red dot sights- but even he didn't buy any of these stupid magazines.  So that's where we are at- I think they should be illegal- you don't.  So you vote your way and I will vote mine- fair enough?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 23, 2014 11:49:17 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Jun 23, 2014 10:03:20 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Umm- why are you telling me what I already know?  The term is used interchangeably now- I didn't do it.

And why do you think I have a problem with them?  I only have a problem with the magazines.  My .30-06 with the proper magazine would make one hell of a killing machine, could do a lot more damage than an AR-15, the current favorite of mass shooters.  My factory magazine holds I think 4 rounds, that's all you need and all that should be available.  Settle on a number and call it a day.  Wanna go 10- we can go 10.  But 30 is out of the question, and anything over 100 is freaking insane. 

As far as the "assault weapon" designation I could care less- trick it out any way you want- as long as after the 10 shots you have to reload.

Your missing my point, but that's OK by me. Everyone has different levels and subjects of education. The 30 round magazine should be considered a minimum size for an AR-15 as the weapon was designed for smaller caliber and longer sustained fire. If you don't like that, then don't buy it.

why would that attitude not apply to tactical nuclear weapons, mustard gas, and hand grenades?  in other words, according to your reading of the constitution, i should be able to own them, and if you don't like them, don't buy them yourself.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2014 14:26:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 23, 2014 11:49:17 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Your missing my point, but that's OK by me. Everyone has different levels and subjects of education. The 30 round magazine should be considered a minimum size for an AR-15 as the weapon was designed for smaller caliber and longer sustained fire. If you don't like that, then don't buy it.

why would that attitude not apply to tactical nuclear weapons, mustard gas, and hand grenades?  in other words, according to your reading of the constitution, i should be able to own them, and if you don't like them, don't buy them yourself.

Because I would say, "why doesn't it apply to anything that exists on this world" if your going to go that discussion route. I was talking about guns and magazine capacities that are currently legal to buy. 

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2014 12:41:24 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Jun 23, 2014 11:49:17 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Your missing my point, but that's OK by me. Everyone has different levels and subjects of education. The 30 round magazine should be considered a minimum size for an AR-15 as the weapon was designed for smaller caliber and longer sustained fire. If you don't like that, then don't buy it.

And that's some bullshit right there- who cares what it was designed for (war).

There is no legitimate purpose in the civilian world that requires "longer sustained fire".  If is perfectly capable of firing one at a time and stopping at whatever limit the law might dictate.

And I won't buy one- I have no need for one.  A friend of mine did- shoots nice- like the red dot sights- but even he didn't buy any of these stupid magazines.  So that's where we are at- I think they should be illegal- you don't.  So you vote your way and I will vote mine- fair enough?

They are currently legal for the general populace to buy.  That's what the law dictates.  What you think is "legitimate" means little.  The vote in Congress last year had bi-partisan support against a ban on the sale of large capacity magazines. It's too warm to wear my "The NRA is winning" jacket, but I'm thinking about it now. Face it, no matter how much money that Soros and Bloomberg types throw into the gun control activists' coffers, it's not working. I hope the population majority continues to enjoy their freedom as is.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 25, 2014 8:20:42 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Jun 23, 2014 14:26:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

why would that attitude not apply to tactical nuclear weapons, mustard gas, and hand grenades?  in other words, according to your reading of the constitution, i should be able to own them, and if you don't like them, don't buy them yourself.

Because I would say, "why doesn't it apply to anything that exists on this world" if your going to go that discussion route.

why would you do that?  everything i mentioned are "arms".  don't i have the right to bear them?

I was talking about guns and magazine capacities that are currently legal to buy. 

precisely.  certain types of arms are NOT legal to buy.  that is my entire point.  if you are going to argue that there is no legal justification for banning weapons, then why can't i own hand grenades and mustard gas canisters?

[Deleted]

Jun 25, 2014 11:22:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 25, 2014 8:20:42 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Because I would say, "why doesn't it apply to anything that exists on this world" if your going to go that discussion route.

why would you do that?  everything i mentioned are "arms".  don't i have the right to bear them?

I was talking about guns and magazine capacities that are currently legal to buy. 

precisely.  certain types of arms are NOT legal to buy.  that is my entire point.  if you are going to argue that there is no legal justification for banning weapons, then why can't i own hand grenades and mustard gas canisters?

I'm not contesting the point of banning weapons but the point of restriction creep of any weapon type. Your not going to stop a people problem by restricting hardware. There is always new hardware (think designer drugs). High powered lasers are now illegal to buy. (I build my own, moot point) There is a 500mw limit on any hand held laser gun. My thanks to the people who like to shine their little lasers at commercial airlines. Most likely kids or uneducated adults who don't know that lasers in the middle visible spectrum's are merely annoying at long distances. 808 nm. or higher with power @ 50000 mw or more at a lensed .3 mrad or less is where the effectiveness as a weapon begins. Invisible, but can burn through a steel barn wall in less than a second. To much power or narrow of a beam, the air explodes out of the beam path (No stealth there). Oops, getting off topic here. My retirement hobbies are different than most.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 25, 2014 12:34:05 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Jun 25, 2014 11:22:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

precisely.  certain types of arms are NOT legal to buy.  that is my entire point.  if you are going to argue that there is no legal justification for banning weapons, then why can't i own hand grenades and mustard gas canisters?

I'm not contesting the point of banning weapons but the point of restriction creep of any weapon type. Your not going to stop a people problem by restricting hardware. There is always new hardware (think designer drugs). High powered lasers are now illegal to buy. (I build my own, moot point) There is a 500mw limit on any hand held laser gun. My thanks to the people who like to shine their little lasers at commercial airlines. Most likely kids or uneducated adults who don't know that lasers in the middle visible spectrum's are merely annoying at long distances. 808 nm. or higher with power @ 50000 mw or more at a lensed .3 mrad or less is where the effectiveness as a weapon begins. Invisible, but can burn through a steel barn wall in less than a second. To much power or narrow of a beam, the air explodes out of the beam path (No stealth there). Oops, getting off topic here. My retirement hobbies are different than most.

LOL.  ok, jma.  i get your point.  i think you have made it before, actually.  but i am forgetful. 

[Deleted]

Jun 25, 2014 11:22:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 25, 2014 8:20:42 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Because I would say, "why doesn't it apply to anything that exists on this world" if your going to go that discussion route.

why would you do that?  everything i mentioned are "arms".  don't i have the right to bear them?

I was talking about guns and magazine capacities that are currently legal to buy. 

precisely.  certain types of arms are NOT legal to buy.  that is my entire point.  if you are going to argue that there is no legal justification for banning weapons, then why can't i own hand grenades and mustard gas canisters?

Actually... no, they aren't. They are mis-classified. "Arms" are the device that launches the weapon/device or makes the actual attack while in hand (gun/cannon/knife/sword). tactical nuclear weapons, mustard gas, and hand grenades are all DEVICES.

Now... if you want to hold the grenades/nukes/mustard gas, in your hand, while they explode/disperse... I suppose you could make an argument to call them "arms". But that would be stretching the meaning because that's not how they were intended/designed to be used.

[EVT1]

Do classifications really matter? We can all agree that owning a WMD is something that should be illegal right?

Machine guns used to be legal- and still are to a point- but can we not agree that the selling of a Thompson out of a catalog to anyone that wants one is probably a bad idea now?

The interesting thing I read today is that gun sales are about to tank- the 'Obama' bump is over and people are just buying less. The younger people are not so gun crazy. In fact- IMO Obama's presidency might be the peak of gun sales from here out.  I think the NRA is going the way of the tea party- 50 years and both of them are gone- and I just might be alive to see that.

[Deleted]

Jun 25, 2014 21:51:22 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Do classifications really matter? We can all agree that owning a WMD is something that should be illegal right?

Machine guns used to be legal- and still are to a point- but can we not agree that the selling of a Thompson out of a catalog to anyone that wants one is probably a bad idea now?

The interesting thing I read today is that gun sales are about to tank- the 'Obama' bump is over and people are just buying less. The younger people are not so gun crazy. In fact- IMO Obama's presidency might be the peak of gun sales from here out.  I think the NRA is going the way of the tea party- 50 years and both of them are gone- and I just might be alive to see that.

Yes, Owning a WMD should be illegal, and is perfectly allowable to BE illegal... because it's not "arms". That's where and why classifications matter.

We can agree that it's a bad idea, yes... but they are still something that should legitimately be constitutionally legal to own (even if there's an enforced unconstitutional ban on them)... after a full background check, and registration of it, of course  (so, no, not sold by mail order), because a Thompson SMG is in the classification of "arms".


Lots of things that are "bad ideas" are legal... and SHOULD be. Lots of things that are "bad ideas" are illegal... and SHOULDN'T be. It's called freedom and/or liberty.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 25, 2014 19:17:14 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 25, 2014 11:22:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

precisely.  certain types of arms are NOT legal to buy.  that is my entire point.  if you are going to argue that there is no legal justification for banning weapons, then why can't i own hand grenades and mustard gas canisters?

Actually... no, they aren't. They are mis-classified. "Arms" are the device that launches the weapon/device or makes the actual attack while in hand (gun/cannon/knife/sword). tactical nuclear weapons, mustard gas, and hand grenades are all DEVICES.

i don't believe you are correct.  a tactical nuclear weapon is called a nuclear armament, or nuclear arms.

arms
ärmz/
noun
plural noun: arms

1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions

[djAdvocate]

Jun 25, 2014 22:46:41 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jun 25, 2014 21:51:22 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Do classifications really matter? We can all agree that owning a WMD is something that should be illegal right?

Machine guns used to be legal- and still are to a point- but can we not agree that the selling of a Thompson out of a catalog to anyone that wants one is probably a bad idea now?

The interesting thing I read today is that gun sales are about to tank- the 'Obama' bump is over and people are just buying less. The younger people are not so gun crazy. In fact- IMO Obama's presidency might be the peak of gun sales from here out.  I think the NRA is going the way of the tea party- 50 years and both of them are gone- and I just might be alive to see that.

Yes, Owning a WMD should be illegal, and is perfectly allowable to BE illegal... because it's not "arms".

no, it is illegal for many reasons.  none of which have to do with the definition of arms.