Your Role in Our Democracy
- Print print this page
- Discuss 60 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
The slaughter of first-graders and teachers should unite us in favor of new gun safety laws.
Make our elected federal officials, Rep. Ellmers, Sen. Burr and Sen. Hagan, know how you feel and that your support for them will depend on their votes. President Obama has called for changes to our gun laws: mandating universal background checks on all gun purchases, banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and making body armor-piercing bullets illegal.
The NRA will fight these. But why? There are no laws preventing felons, or court-adjudicated mentally unbalanced people, from buying any firearm at gun shows, over the Internet, or from a neighbor.
Why oppose banning military-style assault weapons or clips that hold 30 rounds? They are only used to kill a lot of people rapidly.
Why oppose the elimination of body armor-piercing bullets? Police officers don’t have a chance against this ammunition.
This is not a proposal to take everyone’s guns. No legislation could be passed to do that. The 1994 assault weapons ban covered 19 specific weapons and passed a Democratic- controlled Congress by only four votes. It would be impossible to pass legislation today banning anything more than assault weapons.
These reform measures do not violate one’s Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Second Amendment does not apply to assault weapons.
If you believe we need fewer guns and not more, please contact Ellmers (202) 225-4531, Burr (202) 224-3154, and Hagan (202) 224-6342. There is no law that will totally prevent gun violence. But if these changes can save just one life, they should be made.
Don’t let the NRA tell Congress what the laws should be. That is your role in our democracy.
Jim Hart
Pinehurst
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
Courseaire 3 months, 3 weeks ago
What we need is to understand why these people are doing these things. This can be done thru education, identification of those capable of doing it and counseling thru healthcare. Gun control will do nothing but change the way they inflict the slaughter, it won't stop it.
JimRussell44 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Courseaire, would you be in favor of making it harder for those who want to inflict slaughter to do so?
Courseaire 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Yes- that's why I brought up education iding & counseling.
AFCHIEF 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Criminals WILL ALWAYS have weapons plain and simple. Do all the gun control BS you want, but the criminals will have free reign to do harm. Take a look locally at all armed robberies by thugs with weapons. How about ENFORCING A STRONG DEATH PENALTY SYSTEM. These punks who kill at will should be put to death quickly. Make them think twice before they act.
JimHeim 3 months, 3 weeks ago
I think it's time to restore the well-regulated militia. Anyone who owns a gun should be required to muster on the town square once a month for an inspection of the weapons and training in gun safety. Anyone who flunks the test will have their guns stored at the National Guard armory until such time as they can prove proficiency and knowledge of the safe handling of their firearms.
In between these little sessions, all firearms must be secured against theft or unauthorized use. You got a problem with that? Does that not conform to the second amendment as the founders debated it?
Yukonjohn 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Jim, you know you are wrong about what the framers felt. Have you read the comments from George Washington about the citizens being armed to repel anyone, even their own govt.?
packwilleat 3 months, 3 weeks ago
by Randy
Yukonjohn 3 months, 3 weeks ago
I know Pack, as Matt Woodruff said on a different thread, "Ignorance is bliss".
packwilleat 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Well at least I finally agree with something Jim said "I think it's time to restore the well-regulated militia." After that I lost him. Some still don't know what they are talking about when they say the word militia. As written it was to mean that any able bodied man between the ages of 17-45 is, without conscription, part of the militia. The "regulated" part really only ment "practiced". That is how our forefathers sought to protect our nation against enemies foreign and domestic. But anyhow we know what they intended, but the liberals will continue to have our nation think otherwise. My wife actually asked me to open carry more often, not to make a statement, just because it is my right and I should exercise it. Ya know, if you don't use it ya loose it.
fugitiveguy 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Jim H, do you own a gun?
samosamo 3 months, 3 weeks ago
We live in a plutocracy , Your role and thoughts sadly mean little.
packwilleat 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Here are the gun laws in Vermont.................
http://www.atg.state.vt.us/issues/gun-laws.php
How is it possible everyone there is alive??
njc17 3 months, 3 weeks ago
what democracy/
Yukonjohn 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Hey Pack, we have a day about every 5 or 6 months where everybody carrys openly here in Fairbanks. Banks, hospital, store...and LOTS of people carry
Yukonjohn 3 months, 3 weeks ago
And we don't have to have a CCP here. If you are eligible legally to possess, you can concealled carry. As it should be. There should be no ifringement in our right to carry firearms...period. But, of course, you already know that.
JimRussell44 3 months, 3 weeks ago
I like it when we have people posting who can take a sentence and explain what each word really means. I'm going to give it a shot: Here is the sentence that I'll be explaining what the real meaning of the words are: "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". 1) A well: deep hole in the ground. 2) regulated: controlled. 3) militia: un-professional soldiers. 4) being necessary: the need to exist. 5) security: protection from harm. 6) a free state: uncontrolled. 7) right: correct. 8) the people: those un-professional soldiers. 9) keep: preserve and maintain. 10) bear: difficult to deal with. 11) arms: upper limbs of the human body. 12) infringed: to exceed the limits of something. With this information, we can now conclude that the sentence means this: "A specific size hole in the ground was needed for protection from harm, so unprofessional soldiers were asked to remove their shirts to create it. Unfortunately, they lacked controls on how big it should be. They knew it would be difficult, but they also knew it would be the correct thing to do. To this day, unprofessional soldiers preserve and maintain it". So, as we have now learned, the 2nd amendment has absolutly nothing to do whatsoever with firearms. Next, I'm going to work on the 10 commandments.
Zoey 3 months, 3 weeks ago
"With this information, we can now conclude that".... JR is off his rocker, again....
JimHeim 3 months, 3 weeks ago
The first Congress passed a law in 1792 establishing militias in the various states and set the standards. There is no doubt at all what the founders intended with the second amendment.
The NRA, through a dedicated propaganda campaign not unlike those of the tobacco industry and the energy companies, has spread the myth that gun ownership by private individuals for self-defense or (hilariously) overthrowing the government they'd just created, was enshrined in the Constitution. The only problem is that there is no evidence that this is true.
Read the debates of the founders in the various constitutional conventions and find me some quotes to prove that the second amendment was for anything but suppressing rebellions and capturing escaped slaves. Have at it, we'll wait.
JimHeim 3 months, 3 weeks ago
wdd - How often could that 'blunderbust' be fired in , say, one minute? How about the muskets that were actually in use when the amendment was written? How long would have taken them to fire thirty rounds? What was their range?
Thatcher 3 months, 3 weeks ago
JimHeim-- You can start with these quotes: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. After you finish with the wikiquotes, you can read this: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html. Then, take some time to read this: http://intellectualodditiesnetwork.com/showthread.php?tid=17841. Hope that helps. Cheers!
JimRussell44 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Zoey, humor escapes you, I see.
JimRussell44 3 months, 3 weeks ago
wdd101st: You might be interested to know that the original draft of the 2nd amendment that was passed by congress had two more "commas" than the version ratified by the states. Did those two deleted commas have a lot of meaning as well? And can we also conclude that when the Supreme Court, the membership of which is politically driven, is required to explain what the words really mean, then maybe the wording was poorly constructed in the first place. Imagine that! The infalable founding fathers not being able to clearly spell out what they meant. I will continue to believe that if they had intended for everybody to be armed to the teeth with whatever weapons were available, they would have simply said that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The fact that they prefaced that with the wording about a well regulated militia makes it perfectly clear to me that they had some controls in mind.
JimHeim 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Thatcher - Interesting quotes, few if any of which were from the actual delegates who wrote the amendment, or the state legislators who voted to adopt it. Can you do better?
JimHeim 3 months, 3 weeks ago
fugitiveguy - Do I own an AR-15 kid-killer? No. Do I own and theater-clearing high-capacity magazine? No
FightFireWithFire 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Mentally ill people do not care about laws or penalties. That is why they commit these acts.
When are people going to start realizing the mental health system in this country is broke? We give people pills for everything now. Are they really helping or doing more harm?
Spend five minutes and do the research on what some of America's psychiatrists are saying about drugs and whether or not they are contributing to the cure.
Here, I'll get you started: http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/01/im-psychiatric-medications-work.html
Yukonjohn 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Jim,. Here are some quotes:
& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787
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, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861
Thatcher 3 months, 3 weeks ago
JimHeim-- "Can you do better?" Once again, you are a funny guy! How about this? Show us a quote, from any founder or framer, which supports your view that the Second Amendment was not meant to give the people the right to bear arms. The links I posted contain over a dozen quotes from the time period. I'm simply asking you to post one quote to the contrary. Cheers! (P.S. I would agree with you that the quotes I provided are "interesting." I would also add that the quotes are "accurate," "historical," "well-known," and "dispositive" of what the framers meant.)
Thatcher 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Just to save time, let's agree that neither the Dailykos nor The Democratic Underground are founders or framers. Cheers!
Yukonjohn 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Goodafternoon Thatcher. Glad you and yours "weathered" the storm. You are absolutely correct and that is a good challenge. We both know that there are no quotes to the contrary to what has been posted. The framers/founders absolutely intended us to be armed, and if necessary, to rise up against tyranny. Hope your day is going well. Ours is, as long as we stay inside. It is finally on the "right" side of 50 below, but only by a degree or two!!
Thatcher 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Yukon! It's already up to 44 degrees here, so everything has melted. Plus it's sunny, so a great day down here. Stay warm up there you (what are the terms liberals here use?) kid-killing, cop-killing, treasonous SOB. (Did that cover their "historical" insults?) Ha! Cheers my friend!
Yukonjohn 3 months, 3 weeks ago
And Thatcher, I never mean to sound treasonous, nor do l relish the idea of killing cops or kids, but l still to my core believe we are correct in the way the founders/framers wrote our documents that formed our union. I am so interested to see those quotes from the men of that era that contradict that. And while we wait.....
UNC/NCSU...go heels!!
Thatcher 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Of course you didn't, Yukon, and the liberals who post this nonsense know it too. They simply want no discussion which disagrees with their views, and when it does, you get labeled with these ridiculous names because they have nothing else to say. Cheers!
JimHeim 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Thatcher, there are dozens of people in the world who will tell you how difficult it is to prove a negative. On the other hand, the debate record is clear that none of the founders offered the second amendment to allow any yokel to blow a grade school class away (that takes the NRA).
And not one of them promoted the 2nd amendment as a way for anarchists to destroy the goverment they were creating. That's the fact and playing 'let's pretend' is a lame response.
fugitiveguy 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Wis. sheriff urges residents to get gun training by TheWatchman03
check out what this Wisonsin sheriff has to say
Thatcher 3 months, 3 weeks ago
JimHeim (1 hour, 16 min. ago)-- Believe it or not, your post was one of the most instructive posts you've ever penned here. That you can't "prove a negative" is not what I asked. Instead, you have affirmed that there are no quotes from any founder/framer which supports your view of the Second Amendment. Which brings us full circle: the founders/framers meant what they said. You gain no ground contending they said or meant otherwise. If you want to change or abolish the Second Amendment, there is a process for that. Engage in that process. Cheers!
JimRussell44 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Thatcher and Yukonjohn, to back up your beliefs, would you please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Weapons of any description should be immediately available to all American citizens who currently qualify as gun owners under the present laws in effect". Bear in mind that your current belief states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Since you have not added the word "except...", disagreeing with the subject statement would render you a hypocrite. Now that we've got everything spelled out, please respond.
Yukonjohn 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Jim, I have answered you before. There is no except in the Bill of Rights. If left to me, there would be no except. I understand that it is there, and it is most likely not going to disappear, but as l had told you before, l believe that our founders/framers wanted the citizens to be armed to resist any threat. Is that clear enough, that right should not be infringed.
Yukonjohn 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Now Jim, Thatcher was asking of you or Jim H....have you found any evidence at all from the founders/framers that supports your position? Can you produce anything at all?? Personally, l take the Constitution and Bill of RIghts and letters like the Federalist papers at face value and have never found anything that contradicts the Constitution/Bill of Rights.
fatboy 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Ft Hood ~~ Registered Democrat ~ Muslim
Columbine ~~~ Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals
Virginia Tech ~~~ Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff
Registered Democrat
Colorado Theater ~~~ Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal
Connecticut School Shooter --- Registered Democrat; hated Christians,
Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats."
Do you see a pattern here?
INTERESTING, isn't it? Maybe we should outlaw Democrats!
JimHeim 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Thatcher, as I said days ago, this topic was extensively debated by the founders. I referenced the minutes of the Virginia constitutional convention where, on June 16, 1788, George Mason and Patrick Henry spoke eloquently of the need for a militia as embodied by the proposed second amendment.
As I suggested, check Elliot's Debates (the Google is your friend) and read the account. It's much too long to post, but anyone interested in the second amendment debate should understand where that amendment came from.
I'm not persuaded by random quotes of undetermined context. Show me where the founders spoke of arming the populace against the very government they were creating. Good luck.
madstork 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Fugitiveguy asked if Heim owned a gun. Let’s remember JH’s remarks during the Trayvon Martin case. A bit of a paraphrase here, but it was on the public blog… If confronted, he would shoot the person. That kind of answers that.
packwilleat 3 months, 3 weeks ago
JimH~ i believe you will find your answers in here. http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp6ch04.htm Your position on the 2nd mendment is fruitless, for the people shall remained armed for the protection of a free state. Who did we overthrow in order to become a free state again? That's right, our own British government. I think it's time your party picked a brighter leader Jim. You clearly are only capable of beating your own drum.
dentman65 3 months, 3 weeks ago
" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
dustyrhoades 3 months, 3 weeks ago
You now who else has sad that "it's not the guns it's the culture"?
Michael Moore.
And if you haven't actually watched Bowling For Columbine, your inevitable outraged squealing is even more meaningless than usual. While it's a deeply flawed movie, and there are some moments that leave me scratching my head going "what was that all about?" , it's got some interesting things to say about the culture of fear.
dustyrhoades 3 months, 3 weeks ago
dentman:
“A gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements–as a part of his dress–and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.” State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 418 (1843)
" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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."
DC vs. Heller, Justice Scalia's majority opinion.
JimRussell44 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Yukonjohn, thank you for your response. The logical conclusion I can draw from all this is that you favor abolishing the current bans in effect and make any weapon of any description available to any American citizen who is currently able to possess a firearm. Your basis for this position, according to you, is supported by the 2nd amendment to our constitution. If my conclusion is correct, why are you not being as vocal about abolishing the current bans as you are about the proposed bans we are currently considering? Why have you not been demanding these current bans be abolished from the first day they were instituted? By being so vocal about the infallibility of the 2nd amendment and proposed bans on certain firearms, yet completly silent in your outrage over bans already in place, it's confusing to know where you really stand on this question.I'm not just picking on you about this situation. All the opponents of the proposed ban being discussed are in the same boat with you. I have not seen or heard any discussion on the weapons already banned by any of you, except when prompted by my questions..
packwilleat 3 months, 3 weeks ago
I say abolish all laws/bans on guns, weapons, and accessories; and only restrict such purchases to felons and the mentally deranged. Simple!!
Yukonjohn 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Jim, I am not a raving NRA type. I own guns, about a dozen of them. Most are shotguns, but have several pistols. I have my hunting rifle, which, by the way, would possibly be banned. I am just buying an AR-15 from a friend of mine that lives out of town, for several reasons, primarily for my and my family's safety, but l am not a person that shoots real regularily, goes to gun rallies, gun shows, that sort of thing. I am just very, very afraid that with the way our govt is going...and l am not talking about the current administration alone...the previous administration scared the hell out of me too, that bad things are getting ready to start happening in our country. I was a boy scout, and their motto is "Be Prepared", l just want to be prepared, and l am afraid that with the fervor going on to ban weapons, that somethink l might need would be banned.
I do believe that the Constitution is gospel for running our nation, and l believe it word for word. I am going back and RE-reading the Federalist Papers and other documents so as to have an even better understanding of how they were thinking when they wrote these founding documents. I honestly believe that they wanted us able to overthrow our own govt. should it ever get "out of hand". How do we determine that? I don't know. Who is the "decider", again, l don't know, but l think it will be very obvious to many if/when the time has come. Will there be those who disagree, certainly, just as there were those that were loyal to England in that time. I don't know how something like this would work out. I know we are as divided as l have ever seen our nation in my lifetime. Best Wishes to you and yours and all the other posters down there in Moore County!!
JimHeim 3 months, 3 weeks ago
I have repeatedly referenced the dialog on June 16, 1788 where James Madison, Patrick Henry and George Mason among others debated the second amendment at the Virginia constitutional convention. You should look it up. It's a debate by the very people who voted on the subject, not just by-standers. Read it get a feel for what the founders had in mind.
If you know how to use The Google, try Elliott's Debates or teachingamericanhistory.org. Learn something.
For extra credit read up on Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, as those were definitely on the delegates minds as they deliberated. Note particularly how George Washington reacted.
packwilleat 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Liberals will continue to re-write history in order for it to favor their ideology. JimHail were you in attendance with your brothers for the march on Washington??
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/communists-converge-on-washington-mall-for-gun-confiscation/32929/
dentman65 3 months, 3 weeks ago
I heard a joke the other day that may fit this discussion.......
What do you call a person in Alaska who does not carry a gun?
An Alaskan who does not carry a gun is called bait.
Yukonjohn 3 months, 3 weeks ago
LOL, and yes, l chuckled when l read that court decision in NC where they said that carrying a gun was not a normal thing. It is here!! Although, except for a rare instance, where you would need to dispatch an animal that had been hit by a car, there is no need to carry one today. It is too cold. We don't have crime so much when it is really cold, nor are the bears out, but in the summer, we would never be caught without a weapon or three with us in the field. We always have a large caliber pistol and everyone will have a large caliber rifle with them within arms reach when you are in the woods.
You have to know that this is a special place for so many reasons seeing how it can be so inhospitable here some of the time. We are at 54/55 below this morning, with some readings below 60 below around the area. It is supposed to warm up to zero or so by tuesday, but today is not tuesday!! Here is a link to our shiverring!!
http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/article_98621fcc-68ae-11e2-b6f6-001a4bcf6878.html
Yukonjohn 3 months, 3 weeks ago
http://www.newsminer.com/arctic_cam/
Kind of a crappy morning!! But sunny otherwise!!
Thatcher 3 months, 3 weeks ago
JimRussell44 (17 hours, 33 min. ago)-- Thanks for the question! And I apologize for not being able to answer sooner... great day at church and then lunch (church women are the BEST cooks in the world!). As I've said before Jim, you are a reasonable and thoughtful guy (unlike some others here) and I agreed with you to have a civil conversation about gun control. That conversation continues. My answer to your question lies in the majority opinion of District of Columbia v. Heller: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf. I've posted the opinion here so that we can further discuss the issue (and cite page references if necessary). It seemed to me that if you first read the historical reasons for the Second Amendment, and then read what the government can do to regulate this "pre-existing right," we could streamline our discussions here. Give the opinion (with the dissent) a full read and then hopefully we can discuss item by item. I look forward to that. Again, thanks so much for the question. Cheers!
Thatcher 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Yukon!! So you're either 54/55 degrees below? How do you guys up there tell the difference? You guys are beasts up there. Be well my friend. Cheers!
Yukonjohn 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Thatcher, it really isn't that bad...and it is warming up good. We are up to about 40 below and sunny. They say it is going to warm up Tues. to around 5-15 below, not bad for this time of year. Take care and Best Wishes to you and yours.
JimRussell44 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Thatcher, thank you so very, very much for providing me with hours of stimulating reading. I have reviewed the contents of your link and I think I have uncovered your answer to my question. It's a shame you could not have provided the "condensed" version of your answer for all here to view and comment on. I'll provide my version of what your answer is, based on the content of the link. First, I'll repeat my original query, which asked if you agreed or disagreed with the following statement: "Weapons of any description should be immediately available to all American citizens who currently qualify as gun owners under present law.". I have determined from reading the link you provided that you Disagree with my statement. In other words, you believe that it OK to have some weapons banned. The basis for your position appears to be in the description of the weapons themselves. Weapons designed for military use seems to be the line in the sand that separates those that can be banned from those that cannot be banned. The ABILITY of a weapon to perform similar functions to that of a military weapon is evidently irrelevant...if the military does not use it, it can't be banned. This information will be of great comfort to those who are killed in a mass shooting...they were not killed by a military weapon. While you provided page after page of backup on why we have a 2nd amendment, that was never the issue with me. I agree we have a right to keep and bear arms for whatever reason given for that right. My concern is with the RESPONSIBILITY of doing what is correct in preventing large quantities of people from being murdered in a short period of time using weapons designed to do just that.
DannySteen 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Can someone explain? Military-style assault weapons. Are these military weapons or weapons that look like military weapons? What is the difference? What makes a weapon an assault weapon, how it looks or how it's used? What keeps any weapon or anything from being an assault weapon? How are we to believe you can keep any weapon out of the hands of a low life by just saying they can’t have them?
JimRussell44 3 months, 3 weeks ago
DannySteen, skylinefirepest will be along shortly to explain it all to you. He's Moore County's foremost authority on all things that shoot bullets. He will explain that it's all semantics. What you call something determines its deadliness. For the record, most of us are non-experts in what we call firearms. Our only wish is to have any semi-automatic weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines, the ones favored by almost all the shooters in mass murders, removed from general availability. Removing them from circulation will not stop mass murder, it will only slow it down. We also need comprehensive gun registration in this country along with foolproof markings on these guns, so when a gun is used in a crime, we know exactly where it came from and can use the information to prosecute as well as prevent future occurrences, We need comprehensive mental health screenings to identify and treat those who might be the next mass murderer, or abusive husband or child molester. But doing all this will not completly eliminate the mass killings, but it will greatly reduce it. I urge you to read about what results Australia has had along these lines.
JimRussell44 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Holy Crap!!! skylinefirepest has not responded yet. It's been 13 hours already. If there is anyone near Vass, please go by his house and check on him. Hopefully, he is not holed up fending off a band of terrorists trying to harm he and his family. ( I'm now putting away my sarcastic finger that I used to type this message).