Anyone like to shoot?

[merolpn]

exactly

not having a standing army in this day and age would be ridiculous

Of course it would be. Nobody would argue that. I am glad we have a standing army. I am glad that there is a funding process that gets reviewed regularly. I am very happy that "providing for our national defense" is one of the very few things that the government does well. Now that we do have a standing army the 2nd amendment is at a basic level even MORE relevant today than it was in 1791

limiting the standing army to 10000 troops would be ridiculous

You may have missed what I was referencing. I was talking about troop levels in 1791 NOT 2015

"The founding fathers never wanted to see government troops more well armed than the 'People.' "

the founding fathers had no concept of 50 caliber machine guns or grenades

The founding fathers didn't have to have a concept of what arms will be available. All they had a concept of was an EQUALITY of the arms available between the Federal and foreign armies and the U.S. citizen. In 17776 arms were very basic compared to today, however citizens fought with rifles that were the same as the King's army. If the Kings army had 50 cal machine guns then the founding fathers would have fought them with 50 cal machine guns.

I'm all for the 2nd amendment
I think every school should have a shooting range and every student should be required to learn how to use a rifle and use them safely,
but there is no way the general public should have access to the same weapons as the military

People in this country do have access to the same weapons as the military. Machine guns ARE legal. Private people own fighter jets. If you are referencing nuclear arms, I would have to agree with you. However, personally I do not think that ANY government should posses nuclear arms.

[defscarlett]

wow, so much to say and not enough time in the world to say it. I will add however that the active assailant incidents utilizing knives are pretty freaking deadly. Ask China, I'm sure they have a lot to say on this subject.

[Peter123456789]

We have time. The question is will we choose ignorance and the bliss of hearing gun go bang, or evolve.

wow, so much to say and not enough time in the world to say it. I will add however that the active assailant incidents utilizing knives are pretty freaking deadly. Ask China, I'm sure they have a lot to say on this subject.

[rebel100]

I suppose it's advanced thinking to understand that guns have no place in a forward thinking society.

See, here is my problem with your argument. You think that you've discovered some sort of enlightened state and wish to impose your will over the rest of us. Your brand of thinking, if taken to a long term logical conclusion, wherein a select enlightened few make decisions of life and death over others is exactly the reason we have a second amendment in the first place. I hope there is something in your life that warrants fighting for, I hope if ever threatened you have the means to defend yourself and those you love...I hope you have the means to do so.

I try to shy away from politics on this board, but feel your brand of elitism deserves challenge.

[Peter123456789]

See, here is my problem with your argument. You think that you've discovered some sort of enlightened state and wish to impose your will over the rest of us. Your brand of thinking, if taken to a long term logical conclusion, wherein a select enlightened few make decisions of life and death over others is exactly the reason we have a second amendment in the first place. I hope there is something in your life that warrants fighting for, I hope if ever threatened you have the means to defend yourself and those you love...I hope you have the means to do so.

I try to shy away from politics on this board, but feel your brand of elitism deserves challenge.

I regret writing that sentence you quoted, but stand by everything else. And I'm sorry you don't like the way I have put pen to paper. The reality is that I am one of many who believe that spending time fighting the NRA's elite lobby and power in congress is time well spent. 'This system of lobbyists exerting such power in congress could not have been imagined by our founding Fathers.' I don't claim enlightenment. I speak on behalf of scientific research. Your owning a gun is not going to make anyone safer - but your owning of a gun may certainly make you feel safer. This is my problem with pro gun arguers. They never address this reality. The evidence supporting this fact is insurmountable- implicitly and explicitly. I am not part of an enlightened few. I'm just part of those that realize gun ownership has turned into a health crisis that needs to be addressed.

--The Second Amendment -- The Supreme Court has always interpreted this as a state's militia's right, not an individual's.



Researchers scared away from studying gun violence - HT Health

[Peter123456789]

See, here is my problem with your argument. You think that you've discovered some sort of enlightened state and wish to impose your will over the rest of us. Your brand of thinking, if taken to a long term logical conclusion, wherein a select enlightened few make decisions of life and death over others is exactly the reason we have a second amendment in the first place. I hope there is something in your life that warrants fighting for, I hope if ever threatened you have the means to defend yourself and those you love...I hope you have the means to do so.

I try to shy away from politics on this board, but feel your brand of elitism deserves challenge.

myth: The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to own a gun

[merolpn]

myth: The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to own a gun

Peter, I admire the fact that you can admit you regret writing something. Everyone will occasionally write something they regret. It's ok. This is a learning process. The page you linked appears somewhat dated and doesn't look like scholarly work. For the Supreme Court's ACTUAL ruling on the 2nd amendment you should read this: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


I will ask you this: Is it just the lobbying power of the NRA that bothers you? Or just big lobby money in general? I ask this because according to Opensecrets.org, the NRA has a lobbying budget of about $3.3 mil. (This page) https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/client...D000000082 SO, that sounds like ALOT of loot right? How about all of these lobbying budgets? Take a look at the top 20. I bet your cell phone provider spends way more money on lobbying than the NRA. The NRA is small beans compared to these heavy hitters https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

So my next question is: Do you really believe that it is the NRA and their big money like the mainstream media and anti-gun groups WANT you to believe is the reason there were no "Universal Background Checks" or "Assault Weapon" bills got passed. Or is it possible, maybe, that there are elected representatives that actually believe that the constitution (and the wording in it) means something?

With respect to the other article you linked from the Hearald Tribune, personally I will always read them (Tribune Co Papers) when I am looking for the anti-gun bias. I always try to read both sides. It helps me debate my side better when I understand where the other guy/girl gets his/her information and what he/she reads.

[Peter123456789]

What bothers me is the preventable killings.

-You can see that the article I linked was from the Washington Post, redistributed by the Tribune. And these facts are not new. I encourage you to do your own research.
-If you think your links about lobbying $ from the NRA represents the extent of their pull then you clearly have forgotten about that little Supreme Court case allowing unlimited spending by corporations on federal elections. What's more: The Gun Lobby: Why The NRA Is The Baddest Force In Politics
-The Supreme Court's interpretation of the second amendment was at a ruling of 5-4. This can be repealed. Our country needs some interpretation of this part of the constitution and this is what we concluded at this time. It does not make it right or relevant today. Also, note the flexibility:

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

Anyway, thank you for adding this Supreme Court case. Your post has a lot of relevance in some topics, but not mine. I somehow strayed from my topic. I set out to open a discussion on the problem with gun violence and research; not constitutional rights. Hopefully we can reopen a discussion on constitutional rights once we get the right government organizations to conduct the much needed research on firearms!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.1809263

[SteveFoerster]

But do you really think that as a species we are capable of such perfection where everyone will own a killing tool and use it only in the rare perfect situation? The bottom line is that we don't need guns for anything beside sport shooting and we shouldn't have them at home. I suppose it's advanced thinking to understand that guns have no place in a forward thinking society.

In that case, would your disarmament legislation apply just as readily to police and military? They're essentially imperfect animals too, right?

I'm very interested in your answer to this question, Peter.

[merolpn]

-You can see that the article I linked was from the Washington Post, redistributed by the Tribune. And these facts are not new. I encourage you to do your own research.

That was my point. I don't think that Tribune has ever picked up any article that had any sort of pro-gun slant. Every article seems to blame the NRA or gun owners for something. Same goes for the Huffington post, Mother Jones etc. Like I stated in my earlier post, I look to these websites FOR the anti-gun spin. I read both sides.

-If you think your links about lobbying $ from the NRA represents the extent of their pull then you clearly have forgotten about that little Supreme Court case allowing unlimited spending by corporations on federal elections. What's more: The Gun Lobby: Why The NRA Is The Baddest Force In Politics

You only mentioned the NRA and their lobbying power. I linked those as a comparison to highlight that on a comparative basis the NRA is NOT a huge lobbying power. The NRA is very small in comparison. What it does have is 4+ million members that are all passionate about their rights.

-The Supreme Court's interpretation of the second amendment was at a ruling of 5-4. This can be repealed. Our country needs some interpretation of this part of the constitution and this is what we concluded at this time. It does not make it right or relevant today. Also, note the flexibility:

This is not the first supreme court decision to be split 5-4. Just because it was not a 9-0 decision does not mean that it is not valid.

-"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

I agree with the first sentence. But you missed the last sentence which says: "Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

So, What determines "COMMON USE"? Since there are millions of guns like the AR-15, wouldn't that make the AR-15 common? How about GLOCK handguns? They are common since 90% or so of police departments issue them. "In common use" is PROTECTED. What the first sentance means is that driving to a bank with an anti-aircraft missle battery or rocket launcher would not be protected by the second amendment. Because having a trailer with anti-aircraft missles would be "unusual."

I set out to open a discussion on the problem with gun violence and research; not constitutional rights. Hopefully we can reopen a discussion on constitutional rights once we get the right government organizations to conduct the much needed research on firearms!

There has been alot of research done on this. Most crime involving guns occurs in large cities perpetrated by criminals who have obtained their guns through stealing them or straw purchasers. (Stealing and Straw Purchases are already illegal) in connection with gang wars, drugs and alcohol impairment...etc. I don't think any more research would prove any different, so I am not opposed to it.