Tens of thousands march, rally for gun control, against the NRA

Blood on your hands at gun-control rally

It took some 45 minutes for all the marchers who started at Madison Park to fill into the Common, through a single entrance and past a BPD SWAT vehicle to join the thousands of people already waiting for them for a rally for gun control, against the NRA and against the bloodshed that happens time and time again - not just at high schools in well off towns, but in the streets of Roxbury, where Tarek Mroue was shot to death in a road-rage incident.

Leonor Muñoz, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., took to the stage along Beacon Street to recount the day - as did her sister, Beca, a Northeastern student to whom she sent a text as gunfire echoed in the hallways.

Leonor Muñoz struggled as she recalled the sound of an armored cop knocking on her classroom door to escort her and her fellow students to safety - and how she collapsed the next morning when her father knocked on her door to wake her up. I thought it was happening again!" she said, adding, "my trauma isn't going away, and neither are we!"

Marchers and allies filled the field along Beacon and Charles streets (click on photo for a larger version):

Rally panorama

The marchers entering the Common:

Rally SWAT truck
Stifle the rifle
Kinder eggs
Kids at rally
Massachusetts at the rally

At least one duck over in the Public Garden joined in, as Catboston shows us:

Massachusetts duck at the rally

A small band of gun lovers stood halfway up the hill to the Soldiers and Sailors Monument, surrounded by a ring of Boston, State and BU cops - and members of Veterans for Peace. Whenever they tried to make a point with their bullhorn, they were drowned out by bystanders going "Blah, blah, blah!" They left during the first speech.

Deplorables

Stop scapegoating the mentally ill:

No scapegoating
Trump golfs

Pilotblock photographed the 100 or so people waiting at Harriet Tubman Park in the South End to join the march:

Waiting for the march
AR-15
No skeets
Guns don't belong in classrooms

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Ad:

Comments

ugh

By on

I regret not going. But my friends six year old wanted to pet the rays at the Aquarium and did so a lot longer than we expected.

By the time we got lunch (btw stay away from the new fangled McD in DTX, disaster!), it was almost time for them to leave so we didnt go.

Oh well I was there in spirit!

up
Voting is closed. 47

Let's count the ways

By on

this won't do anything but make us gun nuts dig in harder:

1. Accusing us of confusing our guns and our cocks
2. Responding to arguments with "blah blah blah" (yeah, totally makes me trust you that you're only after laws for the general welfare and not a Red Guard freak with a pet cause)
3. Accusing us of being murderers

I could go on, but you get the point. And of course that is the point. Make some provocative statements, tell us we're old and going to end up in the ash heap of history, and then hide behind children so we look like jerks when we object with--you know--facts and reason.

The Bill of Rights is not up for debate. That shouldn't be a controversial statement.

up
Voting is closed. 95

The gun nut with the mike

By on

Wasn't looking for a discussion.

And you do realize that, even under Heller, the 2nd Amendment is not absolute, right?

up
Voting is closed. 95

And do you realize

By on

that I have less than zero confidence that the march organizers' interpretation of those reasonable limitations on the 2nd Amendment is at all reasonable?

up
Voting is closed. 67

And you do realize

By on

That you are not a lawyer or any sort of expert in what the constitution says, let alone how it is interpreted, in any way whatsoever?

up
Voting is closed. 50

I am a private citizen

By on

If a private citizen of a country cannot understand the founding document of his country at face value, then that country is not subject to the rule of law, it is subject to the rule of the mob.

We are subject to the rule of law, therefore the Constitution must be comprehensible to the average citizen and what it says must be identical with what it means.

Try again, comrade. You're getting colder, not warmer. Believe it or not, you actually had a stronger "argument" accusing me of being a murderer than you did suggesting that only the small number of wealthy people who pony up hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a law degree are qualified to tell the rest of us how to live.

up
Voting is closed. 63

A point here

Let's say that the kids in these high schools all, totally by themselves, organized this whole thing. I say all the more power to them and let's listen to them. There's only one fly in the ointment...an adviser to a famous man once said words to the effect of, 'You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.'

So, naturally...

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/MeUCxPJ.jpg)

Well...it's Democrat recruiting, from what I can tell.

up
Voting is closed. 38

You reap what you sow.

If you were an 18 year old senior at Marjory Stoneham Douglas high school and you registered to vote, would you vote for candidates who "dig in" like the NRA and refuse to take any meaningful measures to stop gun massacres in schools, at concerts, in nightclubs, in cinemas, at work? I wouldn't, you reap what you sow.

up
Voting is closed. 50

Well...

Why don't you ask Patrick Petty? His sister Alaina was killed in the shooting. He asked Emma Gonzalez and the other Parkland students to please stop using his sister’s name to push their agenda. It did not go well...poor kid was attacked mercilessly for not fitting into the narrative.
Your agument lacks merit. The theory that 'the NRA and refuse[s] to take any meaningful measures to stop gun massacres in schools" is just plain wrong.
Just this past week a school security officer responded better than that clown on the Broward County dept. He ran in, killed the bad guy.
A good guy with a gun, etc.
Oh, if you're going to quote the Bible, get it right. One version goes, "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap."

up
Voting is closed. 33

This won't change over night but it will in my lifetime.

By on

The NRA represents gun manufacturers. Their prime objective is to maximize sales and in their minds that means minimize regulation.

Just had a gun massacre in your school? Propose teachers in schools across the US be armed with handguns to take down a person with an AR-15. Cost $430 million to $1 billion Who is surprised the NRAs solution involves expanding the gun market? Teachers don't want to be armed, former marines who teach included. And the ones that do are the ones you wouldn't want to be.

NRA opposed all measures proposed after Sandy Hook and Pulse night club massacres. It's clear, they don't care about dead people they care about profit. And they claim the 2 Amendment guarantees you can buy an AR-15. That's just false as a matter of law. Once again, it's all about the money. This won't change over night but it will in my lifetime.

up
Voting is closed. 23

Patrick Petty.. asked Emma

Patrick Petty.. asked Emma Gonzalez..to ..stop using his sister’s name to push their agenda. It did not go well...poor kid was attacked mercilessly for not fitting into the narrative.

Most people who know me will know that I say what is on my mind. With that, I am getting a lot of messages from people concerned that the Parkland families are getting divided. I do not think so, although the media will try to create that.

As a reminder, we did not all know each other before February 14th and while we may not agree on everything we agree on a lot. Some of the parents such as Max Schachter, Andrew Pollack, Lori Alhadeff and Ryan Petty have done amazing work on school safety and I am supportive of

every effort that they take. Ryan doing great work to focus on kindness in schools and society. We should all be supportive of that. I have taken on a roll of working for common sense gun reforms. I believe that is a key part of not only school safety but public safety as well.

For me, this does not show divisions. It shows the issue of violence is complicated and involves everything we are doing to limit incidents and casualties. I support the other parents. Do not worry about media efforts to drive a wedge. We are all doing great and important work.

-Fred Guttenberg

up
Voting is closed. 14

ZOMG THAT'S HORRIFYING

By on

They are showing kids who are acting like citizens how to BE citizens and REGISTER to VOTE!!!!!11!!!!!1!!!!1111!!!!!!

(hand me my nitro pills marge ... now!)

up
Voting is closed. 21

Da, comrade

By on

!

up
Voting is closed. 33

I see his point, but

Is this the same ATF that was running guns to Mexico in the Fast and Furious clusterfark? Actually got a Border agent killed?

That ATF?

up
Voting is closed. 32

Hey

Hey, Alanis Morissette, NPR? Really?

up
Voting is closed. 25

It wasn't ironic.

By on

I was referring to the NRA-Russian link.

Glad you take it seriouslly. Plenty of shills and stooges on here would rather post memes and whistle past the graveyard.

up
Voting is closed. 14

Great movie. Real life isn't so funny

By on

So one of your beefs with the march is that Dem's helped organize it?

But you joke about illegal Russian campaign money being sloshed thru the NRA to Trump and other RNC/GOP candidates?

Got it. Another shill. Good to know.

up
Voting is closed. 23

I'm not a mechanic but I know when my battery needs a jump

Oorah

The US had a military-style semi-automatic rifle sales ban from 1994 to 2004. 8 states currently ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic rifles including Mass.

The individual right to own a handgun or revolver at home for self-defense was found in the Constitution in 2008. The 5-4 majority opinion, Heller v D.C., proscribes a position of gun regulation in the law looking backward and forward. .

Before that, the right to bear arms existed only for the 'common defense' -- words you'll find in the Mass Constitution. In the US Constitution you find the words "well regulated militia" The second amendment was about disposition of rifles militiamen got from the government. the muskets they had on the farm were not the same and not suitable for war.

up
Voting is closed. 63

"... ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic rifles..."

OK, so just what is banned? Do you know? In Massachusetts, it is a rifle that bears certain characteristics like a folding stock, pistol grip,or something of that nature, ie 'scary' looking rifles. This type of legislating leads to a certain level of nonsense.
F'rinstance, and I've posted this pic before:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/xO57wyK.jpg)

up
Voting is closed. 35

Da, comrade

By on

!

up
Voting is closed. 36

Slight nitpick

By on

"друг" pronounced "droog" means "friend" as in chum, good buddy.

"Товарищ" pronounced "tovarishch" means "comrade" as in Comrade Stalin.

While we all like to think of ourselves as friends around here, it is nevertheless best practice to use the latter to troll lefties with.

up
Voting is closed. 32

Progress, not memes, guy

By on

I'm OK with banning them both and getting a hunting license or an appeal to allow the AR-15-ish type.

Sorry, gun nuts have lost the benefit of the doubt.

I look forward to the kids leading the way on this.

The progressives will move forward as they always do and the conservatives will be left in the dustbin of history as they always are.

up
Voting is closed. 53

Well...

Well, I'm OK keeping the law, in MA, just as it is. Maybe even enforcing it a bit. The dustbin of history apparently includes both houses of Congress and the White House. You are delusional.

up
Voting is closed. 34

Trump will be in the dustbin of history

By on

As will "Trumpism'" whatever the hell that is.

As will Jeff Sessions, Mitch Mitchell and Ryan. All bums.

Actually only their policies will be in the dustbin.

This administration and the Vichy Republicans be actively remembered for their un-American shitbaggery.

up
Voting is closed. 23

Miami Herald...expert citing.

Which is why in many places it's illegal to hunt large game with a small caliber round like the .223. They really are not good at killing large game.

up
Voting is closed. 27

Says the man ...

By on

Who has utterly failed to provide valid citations for his gunsplaining or his NRA talking propaganda talking points.

up
Voting is closed. 27

it depends on the bullet.

And to be correct, small caliber rounds are not good at killing large game humanly. A small bullet will injure the animal, but will be unlikely to down it. Then the animal will run farther and faster than the hunter, in pain and if the hunter is unable to find the deer or elk can die slowly, and the killing is wasted if the hunter can't recover the meat. Even when the animal survives this injury, their ability to survive in the wild is less. This is not something that concerns murderers. The reason an AR-15 has small bullets is that it reduces the kick, and so it can fire rapidly and accurately. It also disassembles easily so it can be concealed well. The "hunting" situations that would require an AR-15 are relatively limited, and it in unreasonable to believe that is a good hunting firearm.

up
Voting is closed. 17

The key word in your post is "murderers"

By on

They do all kinds of nasty things with perfectly benign objects. But I digress. Where was I?

Oh yes: Get your accusations straight: the main reason that it's chambered for what it's chambered is so that a soldier(!) carrying the military version(!!) of it can carry more ammunition.

And so that it's cheaper. Lead and copper ain't free. Same reason most target shooting is done with .22's. Same reason there's a perfectly Mass-legal "version" of a scary-looking AR-15 lookalike that's chambered for .22LR.

It's not actually the same gun of course, but it looks like it, and it's scary-looking, so...zOMG?

up
Voting is closed. 19

Depends on the hunter

By on

My family did fine with small caliber rifles - they just learned how to aim properly and pick their shots carefully.

up
Voting is closed. 20

Depends on your definition of

By on

Depends on your definition of "sameness". The 2009 Cadillac XLR and Chevrolet Corvette are both based around the GM Y Platform. If I borrowed someone's Corvette and returned an XLR - they'd probably notice.

Similarly, characteristics that you seem to argue lead to a "certain level of nonsense" can matter in some cases. I understand you're focussing on the mechanics, but we're focussing on the whole package.

A folding stock can make the gun more concealable (in luggage, for instance). A flash suppressor could, as a secondary effect, reduce the amount of time it would take for law enforcement to find a shooter in a case like the Las Vegas shooting (okay, I kind of agree we should ban non-flash suppressor guns too, but that's another matter)

Tripod mount and magazine size and scope also came into play in the Las Vegas shooting. Arguably, they improved his aim and his ability to fire uninterrupted for longer periods of time, especially with his use of bump stocks that increased his rate of fire.

Try to fire 1.100 rounds in 10 minutes, with accuracy, from a kneeling position (so you can aim down) at a target 400 yards away WITHOUT a scope, tripod, high capacity magazines, and flash suppressor at night.

IMHO, many of the items you seem to consider cosmetics and just "scary looking" actually can have an effect on the real-world performance of the rifle in certain situations - e.g. Las Vegas.

up
Voting is closed. 35

I really didn't know that one post...

...could contain so much wrong. No wonder you're anonymous.

Ya, but if the Chevy and the Caddy had the same engine and transmission they would perform in a similar way. Cup holders don't really count.

Actually, it is, I believe a combination of three or more 'scary' characteristics that make the 'assault-looking rifle' illegal. Ask the AG, if she's not out on the field moving the goalposts. As someone pointed out, the flash suppressor conceals the flash from the shooter, preserving night vision.
"(okay, I kind of agree we should ban non-flash suppressor guns too, but that's another matter). Something I never said. Reading comprehension...try it.

"Tripod mount and magazine size and scope also came into play in the Las Vegas shooting. Arguably, they improved his aim and his ability to fire uninterrupted for longer periods of time, especially with his use of bump stocks that increased his rate of fire."

Actually it's 'bipod' but what's a little technical correctness...isn't the argument 'don't engage in real discussion? Just say, 'for the children'. Oh, his chosen method might put more rounds in the general direction of the target, but it sure as hell DIDN'T "improve his aim".
See, if you're using a bump stock all semblance of precise shooting goes right down the shitter. That's why he hit five hundred people and killed fifty of them, a ten percent mortality rate.
"IMHO, many of the items you seem to consider cosmetics and just "scary looking" actually can have an effect on the real-world performance of the rifle in certain situations - e.g. Las Vegas."
I'm glad your opinion is humble. It should be. If he was doing any type of aiming at all, he would have been much deadlier. A red dot and a scope will improve your aim, it should. Putting the bump stock in the mix? Well, forget it. Might as well leave all the other 'tacticool' bullshit at home.

So, tell me...just what the hell was his motive?

up
Voting is closed. 29

Explains nothing

By on

He just jabbers away about arcane bits of guns to make him feel all puffy and avoid talking about the real problems with all the guns.

up
Voting is closed. 22

Arbitrary

8 states currently ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic rifles including Mass.

Military style guns are legal to sell in Massachusetts, just not ALL military style guns.

Check out these military style guns for sale right now.

http://theminutemanarmory.com/mass-legal-ars/

Remember, the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Leftists can make things painful, but they cannot strip away rights. The law has always been there to protect and always will protect the inherent right.

up
Voting is closed. 20

Trolls crave responses to their postings

You can generally tell the rigidity of their thinking as soon as the start posting talking points and arguments made by fringe advocacy groups. To corroborate this, look at what the NRA and Gun Owners Action League say and you will see the same sort arguments being made by the Troll.

It usually begins with Constitutional arguments and then digresses into straw man examples. They make a provocation statement to explicit a reaction and then try to control the dialog by posing questions. Once you fall into their trap, they own the conversation.

You can see perfect examples of this on Facebook. They always employ a user name that is tailored or unique to a particular social media website. If you explore their language and talking points (instead of their user name), however, often you will find them posting the same nonsense on other boards.

While I am as guilty as others for periodically telling them to F off, I have also learned not to engage them in Q & As - that’s what they want. Ignoring them drives them batshit.

up
Voting is closed. 38

Well enough

, I have also learned not to engage them in Q & As

That is okay. John Lott's study on "More Guns, Less Crime" has been a powerhouse of truth and logical facts for decades now and at this point any Q&A on he matter is pointless for knee-jerk detractors.

You have learned not to engage in Q&A. That is a normal reaction in the face of Lott's work. It is called saving face.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

-- However, what most people don’t understand is that this “acquaintance murder” number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. “Acquaintance” covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults. --

GOLD

up
Voting is closed. 38

Mary Rosh?

By on

Is that you?

(See, we know who Lott is. And is. And is. )

up
Voting is closed. 32

We're not debating the merit of John Lott's argument

We're not debating the merit of John Lott's argument, we're taking about stopping gun massacres in schools, at concerts, in cinemas... oorah

up
Voting is closed. 40

The NRA does not represent gun owners

The NRA officially stopped representing gun owners 40 years ago. My parents and grandparents were pissed off enough to scrape their stickers from their cars - and these are people who taught gun safety, hunting safety, and firearm skills prior to the change in focus.

The NRA officially and solely represents the interests of gun manufacturers.The NRA uses gun owners as human shields. They lend legitimacy to the dirty business of manufacturing and shipping weapons of mass destruction around the globe.The second amendment is merely a cover story for mayhem - sales of guns to "collectors" are a sham for a broad gray market that supplies people and organizations that would not pass scrutiny.

If you are parroting NRA memes, you've been duped and used. Many people could see that 40 years ago - I saw it happen. Why can't you?

up
Voting is closed. 38

Ahh, the good old NRA

By on

Back when they were just corporate shills and not unindicted co-conspirators sloshing illegal Russian campaign contributions all around the RNC and GOP.

Traitorous scum.

up
Voting is closed. 30

$30,000,000 from ? => NRA -> Trump

By on

FBI is investigating whether [Russian politician Alexander] Torshin, the deputy governor of the Bank of Russia, illegally funneled money to the NRA to assist the Trump campaign in 2016, McClatchy reported in January.

March1, 2018

The NRA got a $30 million bump in revenues in 2016, just as they were handing out $30 million to Trump. FBI is investigating the source of that money.

up
Voting is closed. 21

You're damn right the FBI is investigating!

By on

When it all shakes out Trump and all his GOP enablers are going to be exposed as common crooks but also un-American scum the likes of which we've never seen before.

Remember McCarthyism and the Red Scare?

Like that, except all the people are actually guilty.

up
Voting is closed. 22

No it's not good advice

By on

It's word games and misdirection in spades.

I love how he flashes up pictures of anti-aircraft artillery pieces and nuclear powered submarines when he says there should be limits on the 2nd Amendment. That's a classic straw man argument. No one is clamoring to own missiles and field artillery. Commonly owned guns that have been sold to consumers for decades and decades, on the other hand...

That's not the only straw man. His video is full of them. They usually go like:

Straw man gun nut: why should some criminals' misbehavior prevent me from having X to hunt and defend myself/my home?

Dude in video: why do you need an X to hunt and defend yourself?

Next straw man...

Here's the real answer to the dude in the video:

Because when we have X available for sale to law-abiding people, nearly no one misuses it. And not because no one buys it, lots and lots of people buy it and nearly no one misuses it. Whether X is an AR-15, a 30 round magazine, a pistol without a load indicator to the satisfaction of the MA AG's office....whatever. Nearly no one misuses them.

If only a small number of people commit criminal acts, taking stuff away from everyone else will not stop those people from having criminal intent. It may make it harder for them to act on that intent, but the cost of frustrating them is to misdirect law enforcement resources against all the nominally law-abiding people who now have their freedom curtailed. That is a misuse of government. A blunt instrument where a pen-knife is called for.

That was the purely utilitarian argument against the ban hammer. There is also a philosophical argument:

We are a free society. If I am a law-abiding citizen, it's none of anybody's business, government included, what I have in my basement or garage or on my person so long as I did not steal it from someone else and so long as I do not inflict any harm on anyone with it, whatever it is. Empirically, people who own guns and large capacity magazines generally do not cause any harm to anyone with them. By a very large margin. Thus a free society has no mandate to ban or confiscate those things from those people.

Focus on the people doing the misdeeds, not their chosen tools. We don't ban knives because some crazies (who were well-known to police as crazies) use them to cut up their former classmates in the public library.

up
Voting is closed. 43

Right.

Better to cite those that know. Those that are well spoken on the issue. For instance, Condoleezza Rice was on a morning talk show recently and told of her father and their neighbors defending themselves against night riders and the KKK. It's not the government, it's not about hunting. It's about the citizens absolute right to defend themselves against an attack.

"And, as America shook its head in disbelief at the murder of four girls, Condi was mourning the two she knew personally--including Denise McNair, her kindergarten classmate. “I remember more than anything the coffins, the small coffins, and the sense that Birmingham was not a very safe place.“"

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Condoleezza_Rice_Gun_Control.htm

up
Voting is closed. 34

Ironic

It's ironic that you're attempting to use Black experience to defend loose controls on gun ownership. One of the primary functions of the 2nd Amendment was to suppress slaves.

The Founding Fathers were very concerned about who should, or should not, be armed.

These restrictions on militia membership are critically important to understand. Because despite the words of the Second Amendment, 18th-century laws did infringe on Americans’ right to bear arms.

Laws rarely allowed free blacks to have weapons. It was even rarer for African Americans living in slavery to be allowed them. In slave states, militias inspected slave quarters and confiscated weapons they found. (There were also laws against selling firearms to Native Americans, although these were more ambiguous.)

These restrictions were no mere footnote to the gun politics of 18th-century America. White Americans were armed so that they could maintain control over nonwhites. Nonwhites were disarmed so that they would not pose a threat to white control of American society.

The restrictions underscore a key point about militias: They were more effective as domestic police forces than they were on the battlefield against enemy nations; and they were most effective when they were policing the African American population.

up
Voting is closed. 36

"Ironic"

There's that word again. Hey, Alanis, get a clue.

"... African Americans living in slavery to be allowed them. In slave states, militias inspected slave quarters and confiscated weapons they found."

Ya, I must agree. Most slave owning civilizations really don't want the slaves to have weapons. Who knew?
When the Civil War freed the slaves, they became, through act of law, legal and full citizens of the United States. Thus, totally covered by the Constitution.
You destroy your own post in the last sentence..."and they were most effective when they were policing the African American population."

In other words, the African Americans needed guns more than ever.

up
Voting is closed. 33

Next argument...

By on

...you're going to make is that the Republicans are the party of Lincoln and that the Democrats are the party of slavery.

You're so predictable in your truthy falsehoods.

up
Voting is closed. 18

"It may make it harder for

By on

"It may make it harder for them to act on that intent"

We're at a "glass half-empty" versus "glass half-full" problem here. I lean toward "It MAY MAKE IT HARDER for them to ACT! YAY! We can DO something!"

"the cost of frustrating them is to misdirect law enforcement resources against all the nominally law-abiding people who now have their freedom curtailed"

Outlawing the SALE of high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles (that obey certain characteristics) would likely not incur that high a cost most cases. Dick's Sporting Goods, Walmart, Bass Pro Shops, and most mom-and-pop gun stores are not likely defy Federal Law (heck, they might even voluntarily stop selling these guns without law enforcement having to act... oh wait, some of them already have). Voluntary buy-backs just cost money - I'm sure, if pressed, you could get community organizations and "liberal elite donors" to handle it.

No one (or everyone except for the lunatic liberal fringe - probably about the same number of people who think the UN's "black helicopters" are waiting to swoop in) is saying "go into houses and take guns" except in the case of "other issues" (TBD). e.g. If you were just convicted of a felony, yes, we take your guns.

"it's none of anybody's business, government included, what I have in my basement or garage or on my person so long as ... I do not inflict any harm on anyone with it, whatever it is"

We stop you from having heroin. We keep you from having pressure cookers full of gun powder from fireworks. We recall food that's contaminated. We make you buckle your seatbelt. We stop the sale of cribs whose bars are too far apart.

Perhaps it's the "nanny state" and there are too many regulations. Fine, if one is interested in fewer laws, let's start with repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and let the market and the Courts figure it out.

"We don't ban knives because some crazies (who were well-known to police as crazies) use them to cut up their former classmates in the public library."

Yes, but we do restrict the sale of things that we consider recklessly or inordinately dangerous. Liability Lawsuits and Consumer Protection laws take things off the market all the time. If a knife were capable of killing 17 people and injuring many more in 6 minutes - yeah, I might consider regulating it.

Asbestos has some great characteristics; but you won't find a lot of asbestos products at Home Depot. Repeal PLCAA and see what happens.

up
Voting is closed. 26

Interesting point; but that

By on

Interesting point; but that apparently required 8 people, acting in concert.

up
Voting is closed. 24

In your own words

By on

"If a private citizen of a country cannot understand the founding document of his country at face value, then that country is not subject to the rule of law, it is subject to the rule of the mob.

We are subject to the rule of law, therefore the Constitution must be comprehensible to the average citizen and what it says must be identical with what it means.

Try again, comrade. You're getting colder, not warmer. Believe it or not, you actually had a stronger "argument" accusing me of being a murderer than you did suggesting that only the small number of wealthy people who pony up hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a law degree are qualified to tell the rest of us how to live."

If the document is understandable by the private citizens of this country and "comprehensible to the average citizen", as you state, then it is very reasonable to think that the march organizers' also had no trouble interpreting the 2nd amendment, my friend.

up
Voting is closed. 17

Because people never lie

By on

And they never convince themselves of their own lies.

And they certainly never do it if motivated by powerful emotions.

Rule of law is when the law means what it says. Rule of the mob is when the law means what 50%+1 feel it should mean, regardless of what it says. The number can be less than 50% if the mob does what mobs do, which is to try to intimidate with numbers that don't actually add up to 50%+1.

up
Voting is closed. 18

We are confronted

“We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there "is" such a thing as being too late. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.”

up
Voting is closed. 37

Not ignore

Oh, right, you gun nuts like to ignore that part.

Not ignore, just kinda pay less attention to it than the part that says:

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

That part is so beautiful in it's righteous empowerment. Militia talk is okay but rights are fucking awesome.

up
Voting is closed. 61

Constitution time!

By on

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Where does it say that it's only the militiamen's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed? I look where it would say that and I see "the people" instead of "militiamen." Maybe I have a rare form of dyslexia that makes me see "the people" instead of "militiamen" but if I did, I'd have a pretty hard time typing this out, so I conclude that it really does say "the people" in there.

up
Voting is closed. 56

Question

By on

Where did you get your law degree?

How well versed are you on legal interpretation?

I thought so.

up
Voting is closed. 45

See above

By on

You don't want to live in a country where the laws don't mean what they say and don't say what they mean. Fortunately we don't live in such a place, we live in the United States, which has a centuries-old tradition of the rule of law and not rule of the mob, junta, or cabal, or smoke-filled back room.

up
Voting is closed. 43

Hmmm

By on

Seems to me it's the smoke-filled back room that keeps the AR-15 on sale at your local Walmart in most states. Who gives a shit if children are dying; gotta make that $! This is America, after all.

up
Voting is closed. 44

People are dying!

By on

because we don't jail raving lunatics when we have the chance.

Sometimes they use AR-15s. Frequently they use knives and their own two hands.

up
Voting is closed. 44

Show me

By on

What these people could have been jailed for before they entered school buildings with their rifle sights set on students.

Oh right, that's usually the first violent crime they commit.

up
Voting is closed. 43

Well...no not always, and nearly never are there no indicators

By on

Parkland shooter had the cops called on him quite a few times for violent behavior.

Texas church shooter had an assault conviction on his record that the Air Force failed to put into NICS when it discharged him.

Washington Navy Yard shooter had been hearing voices and had repeatedly sought psychiatric help only to be cut loose.

Winchester library stabber had had the cops called on him a number of times for violent behavior.

Ft. Hood shooter had been raving about jihad for a long time in his papers and reports and was just kicked upstairs because no one knew how to deal with him without putting his own career on the chopping block for islamophobia (remember folks, this was back in the Obama days).

up
Voting is closed. 35

That's a misleading statistic

By on

Cruz got his gun "legally" because all the shit that he did wasn't reported (or wasn't reportable) into NICS. If his violent behavior as a juvenile were reportable, then he wouldn't have been able to get his gun "legally" without changing any of the relevant laws.

Texas church shooter...same deal. More egregious since he was an adult when he got that assault conviction on his record. Just the parallel legal system of the military didn't click with the civilian legal system the way it was legally mandated to. Law didn't need to change, just needed to be enforced.

Navy yard...dude was hearing voices and kept going to doctors to ask for help.

Adam Lanza used a weapon that was technically obtained legally. Just not by him. Storage requirements in Connecticut may not have been as strict as those in Mass are now, but that's working around the edges.

The list goes on.

up
Voting is closed. 16

No, its a fact

By on

You seem to have serious problems with facts you don't like being "misleading" or "cherrypicking". One more time and you get the Inigo Montoya meme.

up
Voting is closed. 23

missing the point

There is an argument that asserts that gun control only restricts law abiding citizens, and therefore gun control doesn't prevent crime. But in fact when if mass murderers obey the while they are obtaining the weapon, then changing the law can change their behavior.

up
Voting is closed. 20

No, my point is the law as written is not being enforced

By on

Thus we do not necessarily need new laws. What we need to do is to enforce the existing laws rigorously so that people who we see in retrospect are already disqualified from owning and purchasing firearms cannot be doing so in a way that is only "legal" because law enforcement fails to keep track of banned individuals' efforts to obtain weapons.

I'll make a car analogy.

If you run a red light, it's illegal whether you get a ticket or not. You can't say what you did was legal because you weren't caught. Thus if you want to discourage people from running red lights, you don't need to pass a new law making it extra illegal. What you do need to do is pay for cameras or cops to catch the illegal behavior and punish it.

Where exactly are we disagreeing?

up
Voting is closed. 14

"The irony is that some of

"The irony is that some of the laws these advocates claimed should be enforced more vigorously were designed to be unenforceable. "

from "more guns or more enforcement" Anthony Braga

When leaders attempt to enforce existing laws more rigorously they are attacked.

up
Voting is closed. 23

You can't kill

By on

17 people in a handful of minutes with a knife. Not easily, anyways.

It's a lot easier with a weapon of modern war.

up
Voting is closed. 40

For certain values of modern

By on

A Winchester repeating rifle vintage 1866 with a 15 round magazine can do plenty of damage in a short amount of time.

up
Voting is closed. 26

Plenty of non-buffalo Winchester rifle massacres

By on

Plenty of Native American women and children slaughtered too.

But the AR-15 is your go-to fir shooting up a school these days.

Maybe the gun nuts can tell you why. Does it just look cool? Grab a selfie with it before you mass-murder children?

Roman? Can you explain the appeal?

up
Voting is closed. 31

Not really

By on

I can't explain the appeal of mass murder.

I can't explain the appeal of selling more poison to drug addicts either.

There's lots of immoral behavior I can't see the appeal of. Because I'm a normal person.

up
Voting is closed. 36

Not many

"How many Winchester repeating rifle massacres have there been?" A bunch. Oh, you mean in the modern era, you know, white people.

Not many.

Probably for the same reason that there aren't too many DUI crashes involving Rolls Royce Phantoms.

up
Voting is closed. 27

And how long does it take to load a Winchester '66?

By on

This example is a stretch to the point of being ludicrous.

So you can fire off 15 rounds in 7 seconds. Now what? The 1866 you specify did not come with a removable magazine. Detachable box magazines didn't arrive until 1888. So you sit there with a box of loose ammunition, pushing bullets into the built-in magazine, while everyone else waits for you?

This is getting stupid.

up
Voting is closed. 22

Stupid how?

By on

You're just arguing around the edges here.

The equipment y'all seem to think is necessary to carry out a mass shooting has been around for over a century. Nothing about an AR-15 makes it any more dangerous than anything that's been around for over a century or more.

up
Voting is closed. 31

Sigh.

By on

Sigh.

The '66 may not be inherently more dangerous for 15 rounds (though type of ammunition is a consideration) but over the course of 6 minutes and 20 seconds, including reload cycles, there is an obvious difference. IF one considers the performance of the firearm, over the entire course an encounter, yes, the AR-15 is more dangerous than a Winchester from 1866 or an M1903 rifle from 1918.

Some of characteristics that are defined in law and which gun-enthusiasts sometimes seem to dismiss as cosmetic, and only making the gun "scary looking", are some of the very characteristics that make differences in cumulative rate of fire, accuracy, and damage.

The current context is Parkland. Single shooter. 6 minutes 20 seconds. 17 people dead and 14 injured.

up
Voting is closed. 20

How well versed are you on

By on

How well versed are you on legal interpretation?

Only people who attended law school are qualified to know what the Constitution says and doesn't say?

up
Voting is closed. 32

It really isn't worth the time and effort...

...to try to explain English to the willfully obtuse. Luckily, the school kids who demonstrated today have a better grasp of fundamental principles than you do.

But, hey, MAGA your heart out, dude.

up
Voting is closed. 61

Come on

It really isn't worth the time and effort to try to explain English to the willfully obtuse.

First I got some lady holding a dick sign up trying to change minds, and now I got some poster trying to convince me of something so simple that it is "not worth" time and effort to explain it.

You are right. It is not worth it. I can clearly see that. (Maybe you should alert Congress to your unworthy genius).

This is lamer than the pussy hat parade(100,000 hat marchers). But a little more amusing than the safety pin movement (140,000 pin wearers).

up
Voting is closed. 41

Aw

By on

Scared paranoid dude is scared and paranoid.

Wahhhh!

up
Voting is closed. 42

Oh, hi.

That added to the conversation...in your head.
IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/5OWkXBZ.jpg)

I see no scared paranoid dude. I just see someone incapable of adding to the conversation.

You.

Tell me how many people were killed by the Austin Texas bomber? I'll bet you can kill a lot more people with a bomb than with a rifle.

Happens in the Middle East all the time.

up
Voting is closed. 35

Sounds dangerous

That must be why

Whoever, without lawful authority, secretes, throws, launches or otherwise places an explosive or a destructive or incendiary device or substance with the intent: (i) to cause fear, panic or apprehension in any person; or (ii) to ignite, explode or discharge such explosive or such destructive or incendiary device or substance; or (iii) to release or discharge any chemical, biological or nuclear weapon, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 2 and one-half years in the house of correction or for not less than 10 years nor more than 25 years in the state prison or by a fine of not more than $25,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

It's a good thing for us that the NBA is a basketball thing, or there'd be a lot more bombs about.

up
Voting is closed. 35

I have the feeling

You didn't get something.

NBA =/= National Bomb Association

If we had one of those, things would be worse

up
Voting is closed. 34

Not the dried ones

By on

Too much salt, and no nutrition.

up
Voting is closed. 17

You know, this reply sounds

By on

You know, this reply sounds suspiciously like the temper tantrum you are accusing pretty much everyone who disagrees with you of having.

You type well enough that I can only assume you have a thorough grasp of English grammar, so one should not have to remind you that the participle phrase before the comma there is intended to add meaning to the rest of the sentence.

In other words, the "people" have the right to be armed to form militias in order to secure a state free of government tyranny. If you are a champion of a strict reading of the text (ie, as you say, laws that say what they mean), then it seems fairly straightforward to me what the meaning is here.

"Sophistry" indeed.

up
Voting is closed. 37

A strict reading

By on

of the 2nd Amendment in concert with the 10th Amendment which specifically prohibits the federal government from exercising powers it is not explicitly granted means that just because the right to form a citizen's militia is enumerated does not make it the exclusive reason for gun ownership.

As in, "You have a right to join a well-regulated militia, and that is one reason the state cannot take your guns away."

up
Voting is closed. 37

Well, that certainly sounds

By on

Well, that certainly sounds like you are conceding the intention of the 2nd amendment, and are therefore not arguing for broad gun ownership on the specific basis of that amendment, but rather the 10th amendment's prevention of federal government overreach.

That's a slightly better argument in my opinion, however the 10th in this case would really just allow for state laws to trump federal ones. (And in practice, it doesn't always work that way. Rarely do I see gun advocates bothered by the federal override of states' drug laws - for consistencies sake, they ought to)

And of course, there's that whole "the people" phrase in there again. Would a massive movement of people calling for such laws count? If voters in November hypothetically show massive support for pro-gun control candidates, would that satisfy you?

up
Voting is closed. 27

I don't believe I'm conceding at all

By on

Justice Scalia's Heller decision lays out the historical grounds for reading the intent of the second Amendment at face value.

The 10th by itself would allow restrictions by the states, except for the bit where it delegates rights to people. It's ambiguous and was until the 14th was ratified and explicitly disallowed states to deny to their citizens rights that the federal government is not empowered to deny.

As for your last point: no. I would not be satisfied unless and until those elections put enough people in enough places into power to ratify an amendment to repeal or amend 2A. The point of having a Constitution separate from laws and elections is to shield the system of government from the fleeting passions of the day. Even if (especially if) that day happens to be an election day.

up
Voting is closed. 32

Perhaps

In concert with the 10th amendment, the 2nd amendment means that the federal government can't prevent you from bearing arms as part of a militia in order to defend your state. The power to limit your access to weaponry thus belongs to the state, not the federal government. If your state doesn't need you in their militia and would rather you didn't bear arms, your state can make you give them up.

At the founding of the nation, the concept was that the US would not have a standing army at all, and that the organized state militias would provide for the nation's defense. The states were worried about the federal government overthrowing them if it had an army and they didn't have militias.

The concept of a militia in America has undergone significant change in meaning and in usage, which can be tracked through the law. In the Articles of Confederation, each state was required to "always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered..." The Militia Act of 1792 determined that the militia consisted of "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45, all of whom would be enrolled, and required each militiaman to supply his own arms.

Over the following decades, it became clear that the state militia system would be insufficient to protect the nation (the militiamen tended to drift homewards when harvest season came), and the small standing army that began with the Legion of the United States in 1791 was steadily expanded. The War of 1812 was a very poor showing for the militias - they let our capital be burned down - and it was the regular Army that won the war. Over the next few decades and several wars the militias decayed as the federal army became larger and more powerful.

The Militia Act of 1903 established the National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves. Some states, such as Massachusetts, maintain State Defense Forces or State Guards, which are not part of the National Guard, and are under the command of the Governor. But the state retains the authority under the constitution to determine who can bear arms and where they can keep them.

up
Voting is closed. 31

But the state retains the

By on

But the state retains the authority under the constitution to determine who can bear arms and where they can keep them.

No it doesn't. Everything changed with the 14 Amendment and incorporation. The "shall not be infringed" applies to the federal government and the states.

up
Voting is closed. 31

Everything didn't change

The second amendment guarantees that the federal government will not infringe on arms ownership, but that it is left to the states to do so.

The fourteenth guarantees that no state can make laws abridging the rights of that state's citizens as granted by the federal government.

If gun ownership was not a privilege extended and governed by the federal government, then states' continued governance of such ownership does not abridge a federally guaranteed privilege.

Per US vs Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

up
Voting is closed. 27

Sort of

The Supreme Court decision in Cruikshank affirmed the law of the land for a hundred years, until a band of robed radicals started rewriting the Constitution from the bench.

Heller and McDonald were recent, drastic changes to American law and tradition, but they can be overturned later, if our country decides to move back towards the original meaning of the Constitution and states’ rights.

up
Voting is closed. 33

Poor understanding

The fourteenth guarantees that no state can make laws abridging the rights of that state's citizens as granted by the federal government.

Constitutional rights are not granted by the federal government.

That is disgusting.

Those rights are inherent.

up
Voting is closed. 31

inherent to what?

I'll answer that. They are inherent to the US Constitution, nothing more and nothing less. If you say "but the authors of the Constitution say the rights are god-given," I agree but what does that mean? It means they are human rights as a birthright and as a right of citizenship and almost always as a right of being in sovereign US territory. That is all.

up
Voting is closed. 29

Roman,

By on

The sentence's context that you cite is thus: The "people" meant a "well regulated militia".

And in regards to DC vs Heller:

"The Court also made clear that the right was by no means unlimited, and that it was subject to an array of legal restrictions, including: “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
The Court also said that certain types of especially powerful weapons might be subject to regulation, along with allowing laws regarding the safe storage of firearms.
Further, the Court referred repeatedly to gun laws that had existed earlier in American history as a justification for allowing similar contemporary laws, even though the court, by
its own admission, did not undertake its own “exhaustive historical analysis” of past laws."

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&contex...

up
Voting is closed. 17

The one that includes all

By on

The one that includes all able-bodied citizens between the ages of 16 and 60? That's what the militia is. Well-regulated merely means that they are proficient with their weapons.

More than anything, the 2nd ammendment is meant to apply to infantry weapons (these 'weapons of war' people keep going on about), because the point was that, in a crisis, the citizenry could instantly convert into effective infantry units to repel invaders or oppose tyrants. You know, like minutemen.

Honestly, instead of banning AR-15s, we ought to have a law requiring every citizen to own one, and to show up at a range at least once a year to practice with it.

up
Voting is closed. 34

Everything is up for debate.

By on

Everything is up for debate. The Constitution was written explicitly to be a changeable, impermanent document. The Bill of Rights WERE changes.

The time to revisit the 2nd amendment is long overdue.

up
Voting is closed. 53

Of course it's up for debate

By on

But "it's old and needs a change" is not an argument in a debate, it's a temper tantrum. The process for changing the Constitution requires broad popular and geographic consensus and is meant to take a long time so that the passions of the day do not dictate public policy and so that cooler heads may prevail.

The same sorts of people screaming to repeal the 2nd Amendment are often screaming to repeal (or reinterpret) the 1st by defining "commercial speech" or "hate speech" and banning it. They use the same sorts of sophistry: saying it's outdated, saying it was written by wealthy white men, etc etc etc without actually acknowledging the fundamental tradeoff between personal liberty and safety.

A society can value one above the other, or it can strive to have levels of both, but an honest debate acknowledges that fundamental tension and makes a case for staking out a position along that continuum. This is all just juvenile rage.

up
Voting is closed. 41

Grieving isn't juvenile

By on

It is not juvenile to look for answers when our fellow citizens -- men, women, and children -- are dying senselessly. It is not juvenile to be enraged; it is sane. It is human.

up
Voting is closed. 58

I'm sorry that you are so emotionally stunted

By on

But expressing emotion and channelling it into rational democratic action isn't raging.

It is called being a citizen.

You might try that out sometime.

up
Voting is closed. 42

Enh

By on

It's asking for sensible changes to be made such that innocent people aren't regularly mowed down by military-style weapons.

up
Voting is closed. 47

It's raging so hard

By on

it doesn't even take the time to understand that they aren't military-style weapons. They're the same damn guns that have been around for ever, just black and scary-looking.

up
Voting is closed. 35

Really?.

I've trained with military weapons. I'm not the only one who has done so to note the similarities - or the fact that gun manufacturers tout it as a selling point.

Sorry, hon, but you have no idea here. Go enlist or sign up for the Army National Guard and get back to us.

up
Voting is closed. 38

I bet you trained with a pistol too

By on

Probably one you can run to the store and buy, even in Mass. Does that make it a "military weapon" in any real way? I suspect that what you trained with is not something I can run to the store and buy, in Mass, Texas, Utah, or anywhere in the US.

Were you issued a knife? Shoes? Undergarments? And just for kicks, what about the damn-near COTS Ford F-150s that the Army uses alongside their special-order vehicles? Are those suddenly "military equipment" that needs extra restrictions on their sales to civilians?

up
Voting is closed. 30

Such ignorance

I qualified Expert on the M-16 in the Army. The one difference between that weapon and an AR-15 is that the latter doesn't have a full-auto provision. Same ammunition, same magazines, same configuration.

up
Voting is closed. 33

No, it isn't

Full-auto was so useless that they changed it to 3-round bursts in later editions of the M-16. If you pulled the trigger for 5 seconds on full-auto, you were out of ammunition. Soldiers were discouraged from using it.

I wouldn't draw the line at same ammunition, but that's as far as I'll go in answering your willfully ignorant questions. You've admitted to being a "gun nut." That puts you in the mentally-ill category. Goodbye.

up
Voting is closed. 28

Hello

By on

What's your definition of a "gun nut" exactly? Shack in NH with a cache of AKs? Guy who has more than one firearm of more than one type? Guy who has more than one gun on his person at all times of the day? Guy who has only one gun and goes to the range every couple of weeks? Guy who you can call names and don't have to answer serious questions from?

You've got to have a line somewhere and at least half a reason for drawing it where you do.

up
Voting is closed. 16

Nice question

By on

Meaningless question, actually.

The tech specifications don't matter. The kill rate matters.

You seem to think that bringing up tech stuff about guns makes you look like you know something important. It really just makes you look like someone with an unhealthy obsession. Were you in my platoon, we would have been keeping an eye on you.

Signed,
USMC E-4
Retired

up
Voting is closed. 22

The number that matters

By on

isn't a function of the weapon. It is a function of the person holding it.

Thank you for your service. Your expert opinion is noted and I mean that sincerely.

Signed
A life-long civilian.

up
Voting is closed. 18

"The same sorts of people

By on

"The same sorts of people screaming to repeal the 2nd Amendment are often screaming to repeal (or reinterpret) the 1st by defining "commercial speech" or "hate speech" and banning it. "

This doesn't jibe with my experience at all. Most people in this country call for social repercussions for hate speech rather than fines or jail time, and only the latter is covered under the 1st amendment.

I personally see the 2nd amendment as irrelevant in the age we're living in. It's intentions were to enable the populace to have the right to arms as a means of standing up to an oppressive regime. Essentially, the founders wanted a new country of citizens that could repeat what they did, if the time ever came.

But that's a pipe dream in the modern world. You aren't going to David and Goliath with the US army. With that in mind, I simply don't have a problem with restricting access to weapons that can cause a massive loss of life in mere moments. These weapons are not necessary for hunting or shooting targets - and neither of those two activities have anything to do with the spirit of the amendment. Sort of the way the first amendment was intended to prevent government censure, rather than preventing you from earning a Twitter ban.

up
Voting is closed. 50

Ooh boy.

By on

First the perfunctory stuff: The weapons are exactly identical to hunting rifles. Same ammunition, same magazine capacity, same barrel length. Sometimes even the same exact lower receiver but with a black plastic grip instead of a walnut stock. Same achievable rate of fire too. If you want to ban AR-15s for any reason particular to it being an AR-15, you have to ban everything else too.

Next to the straw men (there are so many).

Misuse of the the US army by the federal government is not the only way society can be tyrannical. A lynch mob heading down your street is perfectly capable of taking away your civil rights without calling in federal troops. The pogroms may have been winked at by the Czar, but they were just private citizens looking to exact some justice.

Freedom of the press only applies to people who own printing presses? What about cake baking ovens? "Social consequences" as in a freeze-out from services generally available to the public and in extreme cases an economic death sentence are, indeed, not government action. That would make them extra-judicial punishments. Mob justice. We have laws in place and traditions to ensure that doesn't happen. Everyone's money is supposed to be green.

up
Voting is closed. 32

Panicked White Guy

By on

Is panicked.

Honey, they ain't coming for the weapons that you use to hunt deer every year. Quit soiling your tighty whities. You'll still be able to go hunting with junior - but, like our Canadian neighbors, you won't get to play soldier with an automatic codpiece.

up
Voting is closed. 54

Who's playing soldier?

By on

And who's got an automatic anything?

They're all the same exact guns.

And what the hell does it matter that I'm white?

up
Voting is closed. 38

Do you consider the

By on

Do you consider the restrictions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 on machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, and destructive devices reasonable/constitutional under the Second Amendment? And, if so, why? i.e. Are there some restrictions you would consider reasonable / where is the line?

If not, um, okay, we might have some trouble finding a middle ground here, but what would you consider a common sense interpretation of "well-regulated"

up
Voting is closed. 41

I don't consider it unreasonable

By on

Where I'd draw a line is, strangely enough, rooted in the phrase "well-regulated militia."

I consider anything that an ordinary infrantryman or law enforcement officer would be issued (shotgun, rifle, pistol) to be fair game for civilian ownership. No 50-cal truck-mounted machine guns, no predator drones, no nuclear warheads.

up
Voting is closed. 34

"anything that an ordinary

By on

"anything that an ordinary infrantryman or law enforcement officer would be issued"

Up until the "militarization" of law enforcement in the last few decades, there was a big difference between what an infantryman and a law enforcement officer would be issued. I remember when police carried revolvers and shotguns, while the kids in Vietnam were carrying around M1911's and M16's - big difference. It seemed like after the police started getting "outgunned" during the "drug wars" that an arms race took off.

It might be difficult (or impossible) to put the genie back in the bottle and deescalate the "arms race"; but, if we don't try, I know for a fact that we never will. In 1934, at least, they tried something.

(And, if we could "demilitarize" civilian law enforcement, I believe there would be benefits in other areas too, like community trust.)

But that said, and getting away from the militarization of law enforcement - I disagree (and I think current law and most people are on my side) that the infantryman's standard-issue M16 with burst or fully automatic fire should be "fair game for civilian ownership". I kind of assume you meant AR15's and the like.

up
Voting is closed. 38

I'll concede one point

By on

as a certain Swirly around here likes to intimate, full auto isn't useful for just about anything outside of an actual combat zone. I'd lump (arbitrarily, I'll grant you) full auto and burst weapons on the "specialized" and not "ordinary" side of the line and am OK with added restrictions on civilian ownership.

up
Voting is closed. 28

Pages