Clearly, you didn't read it. Those 17th Century colonial laws are a little to "mandated" for my taste, but it is clear that second amendment is for individuals--who make up the militia.

They were all individually, bought, maintained and owned.

freeman2 wrote:I thought I would try to find what the gun crazies thought about rates of fire. Here is an AR-15 forum. Seems like you were a little slow, DF..
.http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/964706 ... ifle_.html

Someone says they can empty a clip in 5 or 6 seconds. That's 30 rounds. I don't think I denied it "could" be done. However, I didn't see a video with a shredded target. In other words, it's one thing to say "I can fire 30 rounds in 5 or 6 seconds" (which, fyi, is exactly the rate of 6 rps we've been talking about). It is another to say you can fire that fast accurately.

One way we can prevent someone from quickly changing magazines is to not guns that allow for exceptionally quick reloading. http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/12 ... ime-around

Won't work.

First of all, I'm sure it won't pass Constitutional muster.

Secondly, as I said, if back "in the old days" we could get 12 accurate rounds off in 30 seconds with a revolver, what good would such a law do?

Ultimately, as with most gun control, you're going to punish law-abiding citizens. Crooks will always find a way around such laws.

An article on how many bullets Maj. Hassan fired using a semi-automatic pistol and discussion of rates of fire.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... nutes.html

From this piece:

How many rounds can a handgun shoot in seven minutes?

At least 1,500. Modern semiautomatic weapons can discharge a round and load the next bullet into the chamber faster than even the nimblest of fingers can pull the trigger. FBI studies have shown that a novice can fire three shots in less than a second, and a trained shooter can double that. (Two of the officers in the 1999 Amadou Diallo shooting emptied their 16-bullet magazines in about four seconds.) That means an experienced gunman can fire off a 20-round magazine—the likely capacity of Hasan's gun—in 3.3 seconds. Reloading takes under two.

1. 200+ rounds per minute? Again, while it might be theoretically possible, only the first shot will be accurate. Oh, and try carrying 1500 rounds . . .

2. Trained officers missed Diallo with more than half of their shots.

3. Not sure where the 20 round capacity for Hasan comes from, but cops carry 15. Even at 15, we were warned not to keep our magazines loaded off-duty because 15 rounds wears the spring out and will result in gun jams.

4. All these limitations are meant to stop mass shootings. What percentage of murders every year are due to these incidents?

A study on how fast inexperienced shooters shoot (This link came from above article). http://www.policeone.com/officer-shooti ... ting-cops/

I'm not saying they made it up. However, they are sponsored by this site: http://www.ies-usa.com/ The goal is to get cops to invest in training.

I'll stipulate: guns are dangerous.

I'll stipulate bad and crazy people with guns are very dangerous.

Now, figure out a way to keep them away from guns without violating the Second Amendment.

Have a nice day.

danivon wrote:You did not start this thread, DF. You pulled your 'I gots compassion, me, and you lot are just unfeeling gits' card out later.

Yeah, when I said "start this thread," I meant "joined this thread" or "(began my involvement in) this thread." I know I didn't "start this thread" or I would have found some way to blame Obama.

Sorry to be so rude, but that really was exceptionally overwrought on your part.

I have to be a bit cynical though. The gun control crowd doesn't scream over all the shootings in Chicago. They don't whine about the black on black violence that takes place in our major cities every single day.

However, bucolic Newtown has 20 first graders murdered and NOW is the time for gun control. We can't wait until we even know the facts.

Say whatever you want, the immediate calls for gun control were political, without an ounce of compassion or sorrow in them--a la Mayor Bloomberg.

Guapo wrote:Clearly, you didn't read it. Those 17th Century colonial laws are a little to "mandated" for my taste, but it is clear that second amendment is for individuals--who make up the militia.

They were all individually, bought, maintained and owned.

I don't know what's hard to figure out about this.

The way liberals interpret the "militia" section, you'd suppose they envisioned the colonists with a central arms depot where men had to report to be issued a weapon. That's just not reality.

Individuals bought their own guns and ammunition (such as it was), maintained them, trained themselves to shoot them, etc. Where does the idea come from that they were part of some standing military force? They had the weapons for other purposes than serving in the militia. Just as today--hunting, target shooting, and protection.

The way freeman2 and others interpret the Amendment turns its clear meaning upside down. The Bill of Rights is for individuals--to protect them from the encroachment of government. Making the 2nd Amendment some kind of Militia Support Act is just nonsense.

Guapo, do you not see that when the government mandates a person own a gun so that they can contribute to the public defense then they are not granting individual rights? In fact, that is an obligation not a right. A government could mandate you own a gun so that you contribute to the public defense and prohibit hunting, for example. And it could decide at some point that since it has a regular army for defense, it need not impose the obligation of owning a gun anymore. The interesting part of this paper is that you can see why the Second Amendment was written as it was. There was a long history of mandating gun ownership for public defense and the states did not want the central government infringing on state power.

freeman2 wrote:Guapo, do you not see that when the government mandates a person own a gun so that they can contribute to the public defense then they are not granting individual rights? In fact, that is an obligation not a right

A good point . . . only negated by the wording of the Second Amendment, ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Doctor Fate wrote:

Guapo wrote:Clearly, you didn't read it. Those 17th Century colonial laws are a little to "mandated" for my taste, but it is clear that second amendment is for individuals--who make up the militia.

They were all individually, bought, maintained and owned.

I don't know what's hard to figure out about this.

The way liberals interpret the "militia" section, you'd suppose they envisioned the colonists with a central arms depot where men had to report to be issued a weapon. That's just not reality.

Individuals bought their own guns and ammunition (such as it was), maintained them, trained themselves to shoot them, etc. Where does the idea come from that they were part of some standing military force? They had the weapons for other purposes than serving in the militia. Just as today--hunting, target shooting, and protection.

The way freeman2 and others interpret the Amendment turns its clear meaning upside down. The Bill of Rights is for individuals--to protect them from the encroachment of government. Making the 2nd Amendment some kind of Militia Support Act is just nonsense.

Indeed. Part of the reason is due tothis book, which was thoroughly debunked and the author lost his award because of downright lies about the history. He actually claimed that there were centralized depots, much in the face of any historical accuracy. When faced with intellectual inaccuracy, they'll downright lie.

One of the main ironies about the liberal thinking is that the second amendment was heavily referenced (in correlation with the 14th) during reconstruction. In other words, the racist laws of the south tried to prevent blacks from owning guns. The 14th made is so that those laws were illegal, and that the second amendment could apply to them.

The language you cited is subordinate to the need to have an adequate militia, DF. And there was a long history of Militia Support Acts in the colonies--read Guapo's paper

freeman2 wrote:Guapo, do you not see that when the government mandates a person own a gun so that they can contribute to the public defense then they are not granting individual rights? In fact, that is an obligation not a right. A government could mandate you own a gun so that you contribute to the public defense and prohibit hunting, for example. And it could decide at some point that since it has a regular army for defense, it need not impose the obligation of owning a gun anymore. The interesting part of this paper is that you can see why the Second Amendment was written as it was. There was a long history of mandating gun ownership for public defense and the states did not want the central government infringing on state power.

Yes I do. But as Steve pointed out, the second amendment was a national codification of the right to bear arms. In fact, it goes hand-in-hand with the entire argument over the bill of rights. The antifederalists (you know, the "extremists", like me, of the day) argued for a bill of rights, and the federalists argued against it. The federalist argument was that those rights were a "given" and it might lead the government to usurp more power not restricted from them in the constitution. That's where the 10th amendment came in.

The point of the colonial laws is to show that guns were a big part of American life from the beginning. There was no difference between a militia and the individual. The individuals made up the militia. It is to contradict anyone who says that the founders didn't envision so many guns. It is to contradict anyone who says that the founders didn't intend it for individuals. That's just bad history.

And from the article I previously posted "to bear arms" was a reference to guns used for military use only , again not indicating a general right to use guns for any purpose whatsoever. So if the right of the people to bear arms refers only to a right to have a gun for military use, then there is nothing stopping the government from restricting the guns from being used for any other purpose.

I don't know what article you're referring to, but that is simply false. The word "bear" means to bring forth, show, wear etc. Are ball bearings (they bear friction) only applicable if in the military? If you don't understand the difference between a militia and a military, there's really no helping you.

There were @#$! in towns. They were voluntary citizens, using their personal arms, to protect the towns. One could say that the police powers that arose have usurped that, but that's a different issue--especially since the police is increasingly federalized.

That doesn't mean military.

freeman2 wrote:The language you cited is subordinate to the need to have an adequate militia, DF.

You would be spot on and I would give up--if the writers had not:

1. Made the Bill of Rights about individual freedom, not collective responsibility.

2. Given an expiration date on the "militia," or specified that when the central government had a massive standing army, spread out over every inhabited continent, this right would no longer exist. Oh, that's right, they never saw the Federal government dominating life as it does today.

Again, if you want to take away individual rights, there is a process. Use it.

A professor at Yale Law School disagrees with you, Guapo
http://www.slate.com/sidebars/2008/03/p ... econd.html

Sometimes you know you are on the right side of an issue by looking at who is on the other side. See the NRA's ludicrous press conference. http://mobile.theweek.com/article/index ... ress-event

freeman2 wrote:A professor at Yale Law School disagrees with you, Guapo
http://www.slate.com/sidebars/2008/03/p ... econd.html

I never made the case that hunting had anything to do with it. The purpose of the amendment, again, was to codify the right, and the reason for it.

The reason was for the "security of a free state". A state isn't made free by a military. A state is made free by an armed populace. In his own commentary, he fails to understand that the military (any military, foreign or federal) was the reason for the second amendment--so that the people (citizens of the free states), could have a means by which to protect themselves.