I’m writing in response to a column in Monday’s paper, “Battle-call for common-sense conservatives.” Hindsight says I should have stopped reading at “common-sense.” What I initially had hoped to be a balanced piece on the hysteria surrounding mass shootings turned out to be nothing more than another anti-gun piece, in a very long line of anti-gun pieces.

The lawful firearm-owning community of this country are as concerned, or actually more concerned, about the epidemic of mass shootings as anyone else. They should be; they have the most to lose. And while both sides want the exact same thing, a severe reduction in the number of murders via firearms, especially mass murders, they could not be more different in how they want to get there. Sadly, since the two sides refuse to talk to each other, I don’t see much hope for compromise. I will offer one unbidden suggestion to the anti-gun folks. If and when you should ever talk with a firearm owner about this subject, there a couple of phrases you should erase from your vocabulary, reasonable and common-sense. Once these phrases are heard, the firearm owner doesn’t hear another word you’re saying. The column to which I am responding proves my point vividly.

The major point of the piece seems to be the suggestion of “banning” AR-style rifles. According to the FBI, people killed with rifles (all of them combined) are near the bottom of the list of weapon of choice. Further, more people are killed by “hands, feet and fists” (by a margin of 200) than all rifles. So it boggles the mind that if one were truly interested in solving this problem, why not look to someplace other than semi-automatic rifles? The answer is as close as your nearest media outlet.

As mentioned, the anti-gun column suggests (among several other things) a total ban on the “manufacture, sale and civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles” to include the “buy back” of assault weapons. Therein lies the rub. The ONLY way a buy-back works is if it is mandatory, and if it’s mandatory, it’s not a buy-back, it’s government confiscation by another name. It would do good to remember how exactly; we became a free nation. If memory serves, it was the use of firearms against a tyrannical government. We should all pray that would not happen again.

Rick Godfrey

New Market

(118) comments

rikkitikkitavvi

If guns kill people, why do we send people with guns when we go to war? Why not just send the guns?

des21

I will never fully understand America's fascination with guns but taking guns away from (O'Rourke) or making them harder to attain (all Democrats) for law abiding citizens means that the only armed people left in America one day will be the state and criminals. I don't like either scenario.

hayduke2

With 300 hundred million guns in America your scenario is a bit off.

Obadiah Plainsmen

On Dec 2, 2019 the SCOTUS has scheduled to hear "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York". Now the city of New York has asked the court to dismiss the case prior to the argument date, because they feel that the opinion of or the majority of the Justices will broaden the scope of Heller and the 2A. Even several congressional members have sent a letter to the court threatening political action if the court rules in favor of NY State Rifle & Pistol. Since Kennedy's retirement the swing vote now lies in the hands of Chief Justice Roberts. The next question is who really is John Roberts and does he have a price?

hayduke2

Do you acknowledge that the SC is being politicized

gabrielshorn2013

No hay, they are deciding by what the law expressly states, not by what they think it should mean.

Obadiah Plainsmen

I acknowledge that the democrats in Congress are trying to politicized the SC. Hopefully Chief Justice Roberts has more integrity then the democrats.

hayduke2

Come on- political maneuvers to put justices on the court ( and in courts ) is a main goal.

gabrielshorn2013

Does that include the Dems goal of packing the court by increasing the number of Justices as proclaimed by several candidates? Even RBG says that is not a good idea.

Obadiah Plainsmen

HD2, Every SC nominee does their duty of meet and greet on Capitol Hill before the nomination hearing. The reason is to find out how the nominee will interpret the Constitution. Do you believe in how the nominee will interpret the constitution ( originalist or living) is choosing political sides? The Democrats are threatening the court even before the case is heard. And furthermore, I would have given Garland's day(s) of a hearing. Everyone has skeletons in their closet.

awteam2000

I don’t know about originalism or living interpretation of the Constitution but it ain’t 1787 anymore, times have moved on. In 250 years, a lot of things have changed. If “well regulated” of the second amendment has a bigger role in our governance, so be it. It’s ups to the living to decide, not the past. You can look to the past for guidance but that can’t lead the way or you’ll only live in the past.

AW

gabrielshorn2013

Aw, the intent of a law does not change because a phrase in that law falls out of use. The meaning of a law changes when the law changes. Two things. First, this is not a law, it is the US Constitution. To change it you need to have 2/3 of both houses of Congress to approve of a bill, then have 75% of the states (38) ratify the amendment. If that's what you want, get after it. Good luck. Second, clocks were called regulators. Are they laws?

hayduke2

Then why was Garland denied a hearing? Just curious about your answer.

clearview

Wasn't the last mass killing by “hands, feet and fists” committed by Bruce Lee?

gabrielshorn2013

There must be a lot of "Bruce Lee's " in the country, because the FBI database lists 696 such homicides in 2017. That number stays about the same every year.



https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

awteam2000

There was only one Bruce Lee and he was good at handling mass but 696 would have been a little high for him to take on in a 2 hr movie. In comparison what was the number of shooting deaths in 2017? Too many guns, too easy to get.

threecents

And about 11,000 of that year's 15,129 American murders were by guns, according to that website.

gabrielshorn2013

Yes, and the majority of those were related to gang and other criminal activity. Why is the criminal "justice " system letting violent repeat firearm offenders out to reoffend?

gunslinger1123

Assault weapons are not in common use by the public. Why...because true assault weapons must meet five distinct characteristics:



1) They must be a carbine;

2) They must fire an intermediate round;

3) They must fire from a locked breech;

4) They must have a detachable magazine:

5) They must be select-fire.



If a particular firearm doesn't meet all these characteristics they simply are not assault rifles. Since that's the case what's being discussed are not assault rifles. They're simply assault rifle lookalikes. They are functionally no different from any other semi-automatic firearm...they just look "military".



Writers here have claimed they're "high-powered". Not true. The 5.56mm round the AR-15 type carbines and the 7.62 caliber rounds the AK-47 carbines shoot are both medium powered at best. Please get your terminology right...like try and get some knowledge of the subject before pontificating.



It's estimated that there are over 15 million so-called "assault rifles" in private hands. Is everyone advocating confiscating them all? New Jersey passed a complete ban on ownership of over 10-round magazines and all were ordered to be turned to law enforcement. According to the New Jersey State Police not one...I repeat...not one 10+round magazine has been turned in within the state. Does anyone believe the vast majority of legitimate, lawful and law-abiding gun owners are going to willingly turn in their firearms? Does anyone not know the concept of "civil disobedience"? It's a long and time honored method of dealing with unfair and unconstitutional laws in this country. It was long used by the civil rights movement...and owning firearms is a civil right.

phydeaux994

If it gets to the point that a rogue Government demands that you surrender your firearms, they won’t care if you are willing or not. They’ll just tell you that if you are caught with a firearm after some set date, you will be imprisoned or worse, along with your family. You’ll surrender your firearms.

petersamuel

I can't find the column referenced by Mr Godfrey “Battle-call for common-sense conservatives.” Was it in the online edition and removed? If anyone has a copy perhaps they could post it as a Comment so we know what we're discussing. Or if a FNP staffer reads this perhaps they could post it as a column.

gabrielshorn2013

Here you go petersamuel



https://www.fredericknewspost.com/opinion/columns/a-gun-owner-speaks/article_0afa11d0-9c1f-5c05-89b2-e67ceea3622f.html

threecents

To all you gun enthusiasts out there, please become part of the solution to our gun problems. And here is a starting point: The solutions do not involve buying more guns and ammunition. Why not demand the NRA stop being a lobbying group to promote the gun industries and return it solely to its original mission of promoting gun safety?

rikkitikkitavvi

This was my response to Topchik back in 2013 when he labeled the NRA as a monolithic organization. I can't believe it actually got printed. Let's see if it gets posted today

I take issue with the condemnation of the National Rifle Association and people that believe in the Second Amendment. Columnist Jack Topchik’s first paragraph issues the proposal that, “You can take my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.” I’m sure that NRA members and non-members that are American Citizens and legally own guns would agree to that proposal. I do.

The columnist fails to mention in the second paragraph that it was a military base and only minimal firearms were permitted. This made a military base, for all intents and purposes a target-rich environment. Sorry, I meant almost a gun-free zone. Since the shooter did have one. These zones work so well.

In the third paragraph the use of “troops” and “a gang” appears interchangeable. Does the columnist consider our modern military members just “a gang”? The estimate of NRA membership is low by about 2 million. We are about 5 million strong and growing.



In the fourth paragraph the proclamation is that there was a push to interpret the Second Amendment as a right for the people to keep and bear arms. No modern interpretation is needed. A well regulated militia …the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Please note that the people part supersedes the militia part. This is because in those days the people kept their “assault weapons” close at hand while doing their daily chores.

The fifth paragraph goes on about how the “gun lobby refuses to concede an inch” and have “prevented restrictions on assault weapons.” That is almost comical. I’m sure the definition of “assault weapons” widely vary from pro-gun and anti-gun sides.

The sixth paragraph is also comical. “Aggressive Reinterpretation?” All I have to say about that is Wow! Simply wow!

Seventh Paragraph. I’ll start by stating that I guess I can throw all my fire extinguishers away since the fire department is only a phone call away. Or how about when seconds count, the police are only minutes away? Why would the columnist want to take a defense mechanism away from a woman with two kids when a thug twice her size is coming through the window?

In the eighth paragraph the columnist cites a statistic. Why isn’t there another statistic that cites how many guns are used in defense of homeowners against criminals? The columnist fails to do this, as well as the mainstream media outlets, because it doesn’t go with the agenda to make gun ownership a health hazard instead of a personal choice to demonize the gun. They want to keep the people living in fear as they erode our God-given rights, while they militarize the police departments all over this country. The illusion of safety is big business.



In the ninth, 10th and 11th paragraphs, Wayne is quoted. Wayne is correct. The columnist and others that fall on the opposing side of self defense attack the guns as their first response to a horrific event. Why not attack the pharmaceutical companies that produce the drugs that have worse side effects then the disease itself? They refuse to attack the doctors that dispense these drugs like candy to our children. They refuse to attack parents that use electronics as babysitters. I guess there is too much money involved for them or the government to attack that aspect. The NRA only gets about 4 percent of their cost from gun manufacturers.

In conclusion, what time and place, maybe before the invention of gunpowder, was there a disarmed, safe and happy populace — a people held in the loving and protective arms of a king or government, who needn’t fear thieves, madmen or tyranny? Perhaps you want to create a utopia, a Shangri-La, a place where evil no longer exists and where everyone loves their fellow man?

Final question. Why should we just give up our individual rights so we can try to create a society that never existed?

threecents

Sorry, too long a response for me... and it was from you, so...

hayduke2

[thumbup]

rikkitikkitavvi

In short, people that have a belief similar to you should attack the individual instead of the tool. The NRA saw the need to change their tactics to the changing of the gun and 2A haters tactics so the did. Very simple logic.

gunslinger1123

You show a distinct lack of knowledge of the NRA...you're buying into the media and political hate-driven propaganda. The NRA is an organization composed of several divisions...one division promotes safety training for civilians and law enforcement...another division trains Olympic shooting teams and there's the Institute for Legislative Action...the lobbying division. If you disagree with the ILA...fine...it's your right. They have a right to lobby legislatures just as much as lobbying groups promote anti-gun legislation, medical issues, and other legal and cultural issues.



Learn a bit more about an organization before complaining and criticizing them. You might find you don't disagree with the group as much as you thought.

threecents

Thanks for your insights.

threecents

Actually, you hit the nail on the head when you suggested I might disagree with their lobbying division. And thanks for giving me permission to disagree with it. If you are an NRA member, then I was suggesting you try to get rid of their lobbying function and have them focus more on safety issues.

gabrielshorn2013

No three, the ILA lobbies for their constituents the same as Giffords and the other anti-gun lobbyists. Yin and yang.

gabrielshorn2013

Three, we all have the same goal. We just don't think your approach is right. Firearm law violations are not prosecuted to the full extent of the law. They are bargained down from felonies ( which would legally prevent them from getting a firearm) to misdemeanors. The sentences that would put a violent criminal away for decades are bargained down to months. If the current laws are not being upheld, why do we need more, especially when the criminals, who by definition, won't follow them?

threecents

I didn't think I had an approach - except to ask the people who understand guns and gun safety for solutions.

gabrielshorn2013

I gave you mine. I understand both guns and gun safety, and I find it incomprehensible that some are asking for more laws, while the justice system for violent offenders is a revolving door.

threecents

You don't think we have enough people in jail?

gabrielshorn2013

Nonviolent offenders? Too many. Violent offenders, not enough. Violent offenders should not be able to negotiate lenient sentences, then get out of prison to either assault or kill someone with a firearm. Listen to what the Mayor of Baltimore and the Governor have been complaining about.

DickD

Ban all assault style weapons, they are not needed for self defense or hunting,  If you can't hit what you are aiming at with one shot, you shouldn't be hunting.  

rikkitikkitavvi

Assault style weapons? That could define anything from ink pens to steel toed boots and beyond. What about multiple moving targets? You are a nutcase. So is anyone that thinks like you.

phydeaux994

Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions but usually includes semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.

gabrielshorn2013

And the key determination that you missed phy...switchable to automatic or burst fire. Civilian modern sporting rifles do not have that capability. Therefore, they ARE NOT "assault rifles".

DickD

Maybe you think phy is wrong, I don't, Gabe.

gabrielshorn2013

Well then you would be wrong too Dick. Just being a semi-auto does not make something an assault rifle. BTW, how are you coming along with telling me what the difference is between an AR15, a Ruger mini 14, or a Remington 597. You are a frequent flyer on Google, so how about looking it up and get back to us. Hint...although all are the same in function, only one is considered an "assault rifle" by untrained people. You're an ex-marine. I figured this should be easy for you. [wink]

phydeaux994

gab, where in my 3:18 comment do I use the term “Assault Rifle”?

phydeaux994

No gab, you are thinking of the definition of an assault RIFLE. Do I have to teach you everything? Assault weapon has no specific definition, as rikkitikkitavvi pointed out in his 12:23p.m. comment, but is used by many jurisdictions in their laws banning military style guns.

gabrielshorn2013

Huh? I was responding to your 3:18 comment where you gave a definition. BTW, when have you ever taught me anything phy, especially about this subject. LOL. Shalom.

phydeaux994

gab, NO!! I was responding to rikkitikkitavvi’s 12:23 comment that “assault style weapons” has no clear definition.....“ASSAULT WEAPON is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The DEFINITION varies among regulating jurisdictions but usually includes semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.”

gabrielshorn2013

Ok, then you will have no problem adding the phrase about select fire or automatic fire to that definition.

phydeaux994

gab, only assault rifles have an automatic fire capability. What part of this conversation do you not understand? I have not been talking about assault rifles at all during this debate. They already have a clear definition, the “select fire” from automatic to semi-automatic being the distinction. The assault weapons I have been talking about do not have an automatic capability but look similar to an assault rifle and are manufactured in dozens of different configurations and calibers. And all of these variations are loosely called assault weapons. And the term assault weapons is used in Legislation of many jurisdictions that ban them. Each jurisdiction may define them differently, or they may have a list of models that are banned in their jurisdiction. Read the Maryland Legislation for an example. That’s the best I can do gab, to make it clear to you. You don’t need Legislation to ban assault rifles, as they are regulated by Federal Law. Whew!!

gabrielshorn2013

So then phy, you will agree with us that the proposed "assault rifle" ban is nonsense, because the AR platform is merely a semi-automatic rifle, no different than other semi-automatic rifles in function. The difference being cosmetic only. This is exactly the point I was trying to make with my AR15, Ruger mini14, and Remington 597 question.

gabrielshorn2013

Phy, are you not talking about assault rifles with the following?



"...but usually includes semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud."



Are you talking about assault knives? Assault batons?

gabrielshorn2013

Dick, what is the difference, other than cosmetic, between an AR17, a Ruger mini 14, and a Remington 597. All are semi-automatic, fire the same caliber of bullet, and are capable of accepting "high capacity" magazines. Two would be perfectly legal under a ban, and one would not. Remember, all semi-automatic does is reload for you. It is still one round per trigger pull, same as a bolt action, lever action, or pump action. Revolvers also put the next round in place for firing.

rikkitikkitavvi

Gabe, With a single action revolver the act of pulling the hammer back aligns the live round with the barrel to put it into play by rotating the cylinder. With a double action pulling the trigger rotates the cylinder to put the live round into position with the barrel to be fired when the trigger breaks. You have to be very specific with these "people" that don't understand the actions of firearms or they will spin your words 180 degrees to the left.




gabrielshorn2013

You are correct rikki, on all counts.

DickD

I know what a semi automatic is, Gabe. .I was in the Marine Corp for 7 years.

gabrielshorn2013

That was not the question dick. Read it again.

phydeaux994

gab, when I mistakenly referred to a .257 Magnum instead of a .357 Magnum rikkitikkitavvi and the BTT(BullyTagTeam) had fun rediculing my typo. They let you off for your typo scot free. I feel there’s some sort of a bias here. Peace.

gabrielshorn2013

Yep, I made a typo. You'll notice I didn't comment when you did.

awteam2000

Trick question, let make a guess...

The AR17 is a unmanned helicopter.

AR15 fires 10 bullets per second , using up to 300 bullet magazine. Notorious for some of the worst mass shootings in America. The River mini 14,.223 caliber, uses a proprietary magazines 10, 20 & 30 bullet capacity. Long history of criminal use. And the Remington 597, 22 cartridge , 10 and 30 round magazines, ideal rifle for hunting small varmints and recreation. All are semi-automatics.

gabrielshorn2013

Thanks for trying aw. The AR15 can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Who can pull the trigger ten times a second? Nobody. Where does one buy a 300 round magazine? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and think that you meant a 30 round magazine. The mini14 fires a 223 round , same as an AR. It was legal under the 1994 ban, and is still legal in Maryland. Please provide a citation for your crime statistics. You got the 597 correct.

awteam2000

The gun that killed nine people and wound more than two dozen others in Dayton, Ohio, inflicted that damage within 30 seconds with a AR15 rifle and a 300 round magazine, due to its huge ammunition magazine. The magazine was produced in America but I don’t want to expose the manufacturer because I wouldn’t want to encourage others to buy the magazine.

awteam2000

Ruger mini 14, weapon used for mass murderer, most notable but plenty more.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/norwegian-spree-killer-anders-behring-breivik-used-ruger-mini-14/

gabrielshorn2013

Aw, I have never heard of a 300 round mag, nor have I been able to source one. The Dayton shooter used a semi-auto pistol firing .223 rounds that was modified by adding an arm that functioned as a makeshift stock. He used 100 round magazines, not 300. If you knew how big, heavy, and unwieldy a 300 round magazine would be, you would understand why they dont make them. 100 round magazines are prone to malfunction.



As for your reference, yes, that was Anders Breivik in Norway. That firearm has been used in international crime, especially in countries with strict firearm laws. It is seldomly used in criminal activity in the US. BTW, even with Maryland's "assault weapons" ban, it is perfectly legal to purchase and own in Maryland.

gabrielshorn2013

Again, AR15 not 17

public-redux

I’ve said it before: Reagan was no conservative.

DickD

Reagan was a mixed bag, Gladys. He firmly believed in doing what was right for the country, even though he had mostly conservative ideas,


hayduke2

Just curious- how was your life and liberty threatened or degraded when the ban was in effect?

awteam2000

The Public Safety Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, it placed a 10 year moratorium on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as "large capacity".

According to FBI data, the death toll from mass shootings went from 4.8 per year during the ban period (1995 through 2004) to 23.8 per year afterwards.

rikkitikkitavvi

https://survivalblog.com/coming-second-civil-war/




rikkitikkitavvi

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/09/how-can-left-right-agreement-about-guns-they-cant/#axzz5yKLZZ94J




olefool

An opinion of a medical professional on the differences on hand gun wounds versus AR15 assault rifle damages to the human body. I suggest you google and read the link below before you respond to this comment.



A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out of the ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low-velocity handgun injuries that I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived.



Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.



https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

gabrielshorn2013

Olefool, it is the function of the round, not the rifle. Any centerfire rifle round will produce the same or worse damage, depending the caliber. It is the function of mass and velocity, and rifle rounds will have more of both. The damage is caused by hydrostatic shock, which causes a wave to pass through the tissue, and leaves a much larger exit wound. None of this is specific to the AR15, and anyone familiar with rifle cartridge ballistics and hunting can tell you this.

Jleftwich

Rick:



You neglected another important statistic: those who are severely injured by high-powered, high velocity rounds tearing their body and organs to shreds. There are a number of first-hand accounts written by trauma surgeons telling of the horror they see when tying to save the life of a patient shot by an AR-15. The patient might live, but not without life-altering consequences.



The gunman in the Dayton shooting inflicted injuries on nearly 20 people in 30-seconds. THIRTY seconds!! That’s all it took for lives to be snuffed out or dramatically changed.



This is important to remember, because I often see your same argument about more people being killer by hands, feet, etc., repeated among many others as a way to deviate from the point.

rikkitikkitavvi

Amend the Constitution lefty or....

hayduke2

Rikki- don’t they have a local paper where you live to spout your nonsense. Guess you just can’t quit the FNP.

rikkitikkitavvi

duke- I can't let you and your leftist friends get away with all your nonsense. Besides, what would you do without me?

rikkitikkitavvi

AND...most of the folks up here are like minded conservatives so there is no one to argue with. [beam]

DickD

Hay, we need ric and his nonsense, let him alone. We need a few right wing nuts to argue with and ric does a good job of that.

hayduke2

Argue - guess we have a different definition of that term.

rikkitikkitavvi

@hay yes, the word "argue" does have different meanings to different people depending on your state of mind.

FCPS-Principal

The writer's memory is not serving. The last sentence should be corrected to indicate firearms under state militias. Also, I wonder if the last sentence is a veiled threat to commit violence against the US Government if it should decide to buy back AR-15s. Perhaps the writer should elaborate, and be watched by authorities as a potential source of domestic terrorism.

gabrielshorn2013

FAUX, first, the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon membership in a state militia (see Heller). Second, perhaps you missed the differentiation he mentioned. Buyback is voluntary, confiscation is mandatory. He fears that the latter will lead to violence. Expression of that fear is not reason to be put on a watch list. That is exactly what a tyrannical government would do.

awteam2000

Here’s a section of the “Heller Vs. DC”

In the Heller vs DC decision, authored by Justice Scalia,

“regulation of firearms wrote -

Holding: (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. (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 long-standing 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 holding in United States v. Miller 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.

rikkitikkitavvi

https://clashdaily.com/2018/07/dear-cnn-the-govt-says-ar-15s-arent-weapons-of-war-is-that-news/

DickD

Right to bear arms, not a right for a semi automatic. An offer to buy is an offer to buy, not confiscation, Gabe

gabrielshorn2013

The operative phrase in Heller Dick is "in common use". As I explained before, semi-automatic firearms (pistols, rifles, and shotguns) account for half of all firearms sold. Therefore, if there are an estimated 400 million firearms in the US, it is reasonable to assume that 200 million are semi-automatic in function. Is half not common usage? If you are talking about modern sporting rifles, such as the AR platform, that is now the most popular firearm in sales with 20% of the market (1 in 5 guns sold is an AR). It is estimated that 20 million AR platform firearms have been sold. In what universe does that not qualify as common use? Furthermore, you still have not told me the difference, other than cosmetic, between an AR17, a Ruger mini 14, and a Remington 597. All are semi-automatic, fire the same caliber of bullet, and are capable of accepting "high capacity" magazines. Two would be perfectly legal under a ban, and one would not. An offer to buy is not mandatory Dick, it is voluntary, meaning I can decline the offer. A mandatory buy back is confiscation with compensation. Big difference, and there will be little compliance.

gabrielshorn2013

AR15, not AR17

rikkitikkitavvi

https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-17

rikkitikkitavvi

ar-17 is shotgun. Not sure I'd want one.

rikkitikkitavvi

The words semi automatic is right there beside the word musket in the 2A.

awteam2000

The NRA says that 20 to 25% of all firearms are semi-automatic rifles. Not my estimate but theirs. And what is ‘the common use’? The term means shared by all, or many, or in general use by dutiful law enforcement. Mass shootings or for purposes of assault are not legally common use.

gabrielshorn2013

Oh come on aw, only a tiny fraction of one percent are used for any illegal purpose. The overwhelming majority are owned by law abiding people for legal purposes. Far more pistols are used to assault or kill Far more knives are used to assault and kill. More blunt objects are used to assault and kill. And, as Mr. Godfrey says, more people are killed with hands and feet than murders committed using all rifles combined. Try again.

gabrielshorn2013

Aw says: The NRA says that 20 to 25% of all firearms are semi-automatic rifles."



That is a fair estimate aw, but I was talking about all semi-automatic firearms, including pistols. Add another 25% to include semi-automatic pistols.

gabrielshorn2013

Aw, from Black's Law Dictionary:



What is COMMON USE?

This phrase refers to the articles that are used by the general public and are sold widely in many markets.

awteam2000

‘Common use’ is not about the quantity of weapons but how they are commonly used. AR15 and AR47 are not common used weapons for self protection or hunting. They are assaults weapons.

In Justice Scalia’s opinion in the ‘Heller vs. DC’ decision he specifically points out the ‘Miller vs. Alabama’ decision in the government’s right to regulation types of firearms the citizenry possesses as in common use.

Some states gun regulations already prohibit possessing an assault weapon. The federal government has the same constitutional authority to do so, too.

Now whether they will do so, in my opinion, they won’t.

awteam2000

Assault weapons, especially AR15 and AR47’s, are not commonly used by the public.

DickD

And because the semi automatics are sold they should be legal, Gabe. .I don't think so.

gabrielshorn2013

Ok aw, so now you are trying the Diane Feinstein definition of use. Does one need to use an item daily for it to be in common use? Weekly? Monthly? Who collects this "use" data? If I go to the range weekly, is that not "use". If every o

gabrielshorn2013

Ok aw, so now you are trying the Diane Feinstein definition of use. Does one need to use an item daily for it to be in common use? Weekly? Monthly? Who collects this "use" data? If I go to the range weekly (and I do), is that not "use". If every owner goes to the range periodically, is that not "use"? I gave you the legal definition from Black'Law Dictionary. Yours is made up.

awteam2000

Sorry, I sited the wrong legal precedent earlier, it should have been United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). 🤷‍♂️ And the Black Law Dictionary say the same thing common use “used by the general public“.

gabrielshorn2013

Now you're niggling aw. One third of all US households own firearms, and about 1/2 of those are semi-automatic. What proportion of the public would constitute "common use" to satisfy you,? Would you say that a Volkswagen is not a commonly used car in the US because 1/6 of the population does not have one? Your assertion defies logic.

hayduke2

I’ll ask again- now was your liberty or life so very different during the ban?

gabrielshorn2013

Who are you addressing hay?

hayduke2

Anyone who is so adamant about the idea of a ban.

rikkitikkitavvi

The govt. never owned them. They can't buy them back.

DickD

They can certainly make an offer. Some will sell. Just keep the offer on the table until you get all of them. You don't have to confiscate.

gabrielshorn2013

My starting price is 10x my purchase price plus accessories, no lower.

DickD

They can wait for yours, Gabe. Perhaps they will make anyone who has one stolen responsible for any crime committed with it.

gunslinger1123

If you're alarmed and offended by what you believe the writer said, where was your outrage when Rep Eric "Nukem" Swallwell told gun owners the federal government has nuclear weapons? Was that a veiled threat or simply the rantings of someone who has no idea what he's talking about? Still...it was from an elected member of Congress who helps write and pass legislation that affects all citizens. That should scare all that a sitting member of Congress would so cavalierly make such a statement.

awteam2000

Too many guns, too easy to get.

FCPS-Principal

In a nutshell, that's it. Republicans seem to enjoy it because they certainly don't do anything whatsoever to improve it. No Action speaks louder than words.

gabrielshorn2013

Nope.

rikkitikkitavvi

@aw, An armed society is a polite society. Get it right. Why do you and your ilk take out your hatred against all legal gun owners when only a few commit people crimes with guns?

Dwasserba

Hey, aw, can I join your ilk?

rikkitikkitavvi

To be sure that would be a match made in heaven, or hell.

nbouqu1

No.... this has never ever been true. Not in the ancient world and most certainly not today....



{57} The world is won by refaining ...

"Govern the realm by the right,

And battles by stratagem."

The world is won by refaining.

How do I know this is so?

By this:



As taboos increase, people grow poorer;

WHEN WEAPONS ABOUND, THE STATE GROWS CHAOTIC;

Where skills multiply, novelties flourish;

As statutes increase, more criminals start.



So the Wise Man will say:



As I refrain, the people will reform:

Since I like quiet, they will keep order;

When I forebear, the people will prosper;

When I want nothing, they will be honest.

DickD

I join your ilk, aw. [thumbup]

rikkitikkitavvi

You deserve each other. Make sure you all wear matching ribbons. Just the same color. They need not be the same design.

DickD

Who asked you, ric?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominen criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.