What say you, Gun Fucks?

[HI54UNI]

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Even Scalia believes there should be restrictions on that right.

But he's a communist like Obama!

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Still haven't answered the question. What practical "self defense" reason would any law abiding citizen need 33 rounds for? There isn't one. The Right just loves guns, and sees any type of gun control as a slippery slope.

And would this wacko have been able to get his hands on an illegal magazine if it were made illegal? Sure. But he wouldn't have been able to purchase it at a freakin' Wal-Mart just a few hours before his killings. People that want to murder will murder -- but we still have murder laws on the books. Why have any laws at all, using that logic? People that want to break them will break them. It's a silly argument. But can't we just agree that it'd be nice if it wasn't EASY to get this type of equipment? If you make it illegal to own or possess these types of magazines and then enforce those laws correctly, we can save lives.



Nope, but they've made it quite clear Congresswoman Giffords was *the* target. This guy would have put a bullet in her skull if he had 100 bullets or one. But perhaps if he had to reload sooner, he could have been tackled sooner. Maybe 9-year old Christina-Taylor Green is alive. Maybe Judge Roll is alive. Maybe Gabe Zimmerman is alive. Maybe Dorwin Stoddard is alive. Maybe Phyllis Schneck is alive. Maybe Dorothy Morris alive. Maybe some of those in the hospital wouldn't be there. It's hard to shoot 20 people with only 12 bullets. And if this guy only hit 20 people with 33 bullets, he's missing on a 1/3 of his shots. Limit him to 12 bullets and maybe he only shoots eight. Lives are saved.

If you don't learn from history you are destined to repeat it. I'd like to learn from this whole mess and see what we can do better. You'd rather just say "Eh, crazy people do crazy shit." But that's a simple answer in a complex world. There's another part to that sentence. Crazy people will do crazy shit, but let's not make it easy on them, and when they do go crazy let's try to limit the damage.

OK, so if we ban all magazines greater than 12 bullets what is to stop me from buying two or three pistols with a 12 shot magazine? One for each hand I still have 24 shots. I can pull a 3rd one out of my coat pocket when the 1st one is empty and I have 36 shots. The gun isn't killing anyone. It is the person pulling the trigger.

Getting back to this late but before your post that is the same thought I was having. If someone wants more bullets or thinks they need them to fortify the damage of their misdeed then it's an easy work around. Limit the size of the mag if doing pointless little things makes you feel better about yourself but it won't make one bit of difference if someone like this is motivated again. Two guns will get 24 out quicker than one with a 33 rounder and then one more gun gives you 3 extra shots if you feel you need that many rounds. The all important unintended conquences can shft the next discussion to "why did this guy have 2 or 3 guns?", "We need to have a law that only allows for ONE gun!"

It's some silly bullshit man.

[AZGrizFan]

Still haven't answered the question. What practical "self defense" reason would any law abiding citizen need 33 rounds for? There isn't one. The Right just loves guns, and sees any type of gun control as a slippery slope.

For what practical reason would any law abiding citizen need an H2? There isn't one, but they sell 'em anyways.

[Grizalltheway]

Not anymore, they don't.

[Skjellyfetti]

I just don't get why people feel the need to carry a gun with them whenever they leave the house. Are they really that afraid of someone attacking them? Do they really live somewhere that dangerous? To me it's just as crazy as wearing a bullet proof vest everytime you leave the house. The World (especially where we all live) isn't a scary place. Jesus fucking Christ.

And before someone tries to put words in my mouth -- I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to... just saying I don't understand why people feel the need the need.

[GannonFan]

I just don't get why people feel the need to carry a gun with them whenever they leave the house. Are they really that afraid of someone attacking them? Do they really live somewhere that dangerous? To me it's just as crazy as wearing a bullet proof vest everytime you leave the house. The World (especially where we all live) isn't a scary place. Jesus **** Christ.

And before someone tries to put words in my mouth -- I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to... just saying I don't understand why people feel the need the need.

I'm not a fan of completely unfettered gun access, but I really question whether you've been around the block enough. There are plenty of places, in this country and out of it, that are scary places. Doesn't mean that I would carry a gun, but I'm not going to mock people who feel they need to.

[Skjellyfetti]

I'm not a fan of completely unfettered gun access, but I really question whether you've been around the block enough. There are plenty of places, in this country and out of it, that are scary places. Doesn't mean that I would carry a gun, but I'm not going to mock people who feel they need to.

I haven't been around the block enough? You don't know much at all about me.

The World ain't a scary place. Seems to me the people that have "been around the block" hold that view. The people that never venture into uncomfortable places or situations live in more fear... cause it's all unknown.

[youngterrier]

I just don't get why people feel the need to carry a gun with them whenever they leave the house. Are they really that afraid of someone attacking them? Do they really live somewhere that dangerous? To me it's just as crazy as wearing a bullet proof vest everytime you leave the house. The World (especially where we all live) isn't a scary place. Jesus fucking Christ.

And before someone tries to put words in my mouth -- I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to... just saying I don't understand why people feel the need the need.

It's like a condom. Better to have one and not need one than need one and not have one

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I just don't get why people feel the need to carry a gun with them whenever they leave the house. Are they really that afraid of someone attacking them? Do they really live somewhere that dangerous? To me it's just as crazy as wearing a bullet proof vest everytime you leave the house. The World (especially where we all live) isn't a scary place. Jesus fucking Christ.

And before someone tries to put words in my mouth -- I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to... just saying I don't understand why people feel the need the need.

Who gives a fuck if you get it? It's not necessarily for you to understand or anybody else to have to defend why they feel the need to you. You don't carry, good for you. I don't feel the need either but it ain't something I feel the need to question others about why they need it. It is their right and that's all I need to know.

There is a whole lot of shit that you and I don't understand about what other people find comfort in but we don't need to. we only need to know that they are working within their rights as citizens.

[native]

I just don't get why people feel the need to carry a gun with them whenever they leave the house. Are they really that afraid of someone attacking them? Do they really live somewhere that dangerous? To me it's just as crazy as wearing a bullet proof vest everytime you leave the house. The World (especially where we all live) isn't a scary place. Jesus **** Christ.

And before someone tries to put words in my mouth -- I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to... just saying I don't understand why people feel the need the need.

It's like a condom. Better to have one and not need one than need one and not have one

[BDKJMU]

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Hmm. I wonder what that "..." is before your post??? Oh. Here it is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." To steal a line from The West Wing, I don't think three guys in a Dodge Durango is what they had in mind.

Nevermind that nowhere in any of my posts will you find me advocating gun policy that includes the banning of guns.

You have to look at the meaning through an 18th century lens. Was a requirement in most communities in the colonies back then that males be armed.

-"Well regulated" had nothing to do with govt control. It meant proficient in marksmanship.

Militia: simply meant the group or community. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In other words, "A well regulated Militia (ie. armed members of the community proficient in marksmanship), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[clenz]

I'm not a fan of completely unfettered gun access, but I really question whether you've been around the block enough. There are plenty of places, in this country and out of it, that are scary places. Doesn't mean that I would carry a gun, but I'm not going to mock people who feel they need to.

I haven't been around the block enough? You don't know much at all about me.

The World ain't a scary place. Seems to me the people that have "been around the block" hold that view. The people that never venture into uncomfortable places or situations live in more fear... cause it's all unknown.

Waterloo, IA isn't "that scary" but there are parts of that town I will not go to after dark without a gun in my car.

[Skjellyfetti]

Hmm. I wonder what that "..." is before your post??? Oh. Here it is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." To steal a line from The West Wing, I don't think three guys in a Dodge Durango is what they had in mind.

Nevermind that nowhere in any of my posts will you find me advocating gun policy that includes the banning of guns.

You have to look at the meaning through an 18th century lens. Was a requirement in most communities in the colonies back then that males be armed.

-"Well regulated" had nothing to do with govt control. It meant proficient in marksmanship.

Militia: simply meant the group or community. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In other words, "A well regulated Militia (ie. armed members of the community proficient in marksmanship), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia (organized, armed and disciplined by the United States Congress)
Article I, Section 8 of Constitution:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[BDKJMU]

You have to look at the meaning through an 18th century lens. Was a requirement in most communities in the colonies back then that males be armed.

-"Well regulated" had nothing to do with govt control. It meant proficient in marksmanship.

Militia: simply meant the group or community. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In other words, "A well regulated Militia (ie. armed members of the community proficient in marksmanship), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia (organized, armed and disciplined by the United States Congress)
Article I, Section 8 of Constitution:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Nice try, but there were 2 different types of militia that the founders dealt with, organized and unorganized. It was pretty clear the founding fathers were referring to the unorganized militia in reference to the 2nd Amendment.

"Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both "organized" and "unorganized" civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces
Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blusmilitia.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And again, the "well regulated" part wasn't referring to an organized militia under gov't control, as evidenced by the George Mason quote I cited in my previous post "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

Mason was clearly referring to an unorganized militia. The well regulated was referring to proficiency in marksmanship.

[Skjellyfetti]

The well regulated was referring to proficiency in marksmanship.

lol. What's your basis for this? A Glenn Beck monologue?

"Well regulated" = trained and disciplined

Alexander Hamilton. Federalist 29:

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Well regulated militia = organized militia.... the militia referenced in Article 1 Section 8:

[Congress shall have the power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Regulate = "bring into conformity with rules or principles or usage; impose regulations". Not "proficiency in marksmanship"

[BDKJMU]

The well regulated was referring to proficiency in marksmanship.

lol. What's your basis for this?

"Well regulated" = trained

Alexander Hamilton. Federalist 29:

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Well regulated militia = organized militia

In terms of the 2nd Amendment its clear that "well regulated" doesn't equal government control.

"The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've also made clear that Mason was referring to an unorganized militia. Other quotes from founding fathers that were clearly referring to an unorganized militia:

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

http://www.uhuh.com/guns/2ndquotes.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think its pretty clear that the founders were referring to an unorganized militia where it was the right of the people keep their own firearms.

[BDKJMU]

Oops, didn't realize last night made a damn double post.

[death dealer]

I haven't been around the block enough? You don't know much at all about me.

The World ain't a scary place. Seems to me the people that have "been around the block" hold that view. The people that never venture into uncomfortable places or situations live in more fear... cause it's all unknown.

Waterloo, IA isn't "that scary" but there are parts of that town I will not go to after dark without a gun in my car.

I know exactly what you mean. Charleston, S.C. is not exactly a hotbed of violent crime, but back in the mid 80's if a cop spotted you north of Calhoun and you didn't have a gun he'd give you one.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Waterloo, IA isn't "that scary" but there are parts of that town I will not go to after dark without a gun in my car.

I know exactly what you mean. Charleston, S.C. is not exactly a hotbed of violent crime, but back in the mid 80's if a cop spotted you north of Calhoun and you didn't have a gun he'd give you one.

[andy7171]

Anyone else find the humor in a JMU guy continuously quoting George Mason?

[Col Hogan]

I just don't get why people feel the need to have as fire extinguisher with them whenever they are in the house. Are they really that afraid that they'll have a fire? Do they really live somewhere that dangerous? To me it's just as crazy as carrying a first aid kit. The World (especially where we all live) isn't a scary place. Jesus **** Christ.

That's just crazy...why would you not want to have all the tools possible to protect yourself???

[Skjellyfetti]

lol.

do you not see a difference between stashing a fire extinguisher under the sink... and grabbing your holster and gun whenever you leave the house?

[CID1990]

The well regulated was referring to proficiency in marksmanship.

lol. What's your basis for this? A Glenn Beck monologue?

"Well regulated" = trained and disciplined

Alexander Hamilton. Federalist 29:

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Well regulated militia = organized militia.... the militia referenced in Article 1 Section 8:

[Congress shall have the power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Regulate = "bring into conformity with rules or principles or usage; impose regulations". Not "proficiency in marksmanship"

Unfortunately for you and the rest of the hand wringers, most Americans disagree with you, which is why you and yours will spend eternity arguing this case to no avail.

[Grizalltheway]

There's a big difference between being paranoid and being prepared. There are plenty of areas in this country (Compton, Detroit, etc) where I wouldn't even consider going without packing heat. Hell, even hiking in bear country here without a side arm is a risky proposition.

[Col Hogan]

lol.

do you not see a difference between stashing a fire extinguisher under the sink... and grabbing your holster and gun whenever you leave the house?

The danger of a fire does not move with me as I go out in the community...so I stash one in the house

The danger of a wacko or criminal does...so I stash a gun in a holster on my hip...

Nope...don't see the difference...can you explain it to me...