or are you just "clinging to your guns and Bible?"

Can you focus on the discussion please?

Where does it say that you have a right to concealed carry?

Only what is prohibited. If it's not illegal, you're good to go.

there is no problem with restricting the practice.

Yes and we should focus on mental illness instead of the insane number of guns floating around that criminals have access to because of lax gun laws and irresponsible gun owners.

You just made my point, btw.

keep on humping those guns!

But why not go all-in? Surely there's a small penis comment or two in your repertoire...

She'd generally embarrass the hell out of the fools that made the statement.

When receiving that sort of thing online, I love responding with some variation of "Yes, I have a very small penis, indeed. It's called a clitoris. Perhaps you've heard of them?"

Or do they not exist in your world?

A state may prescribe the manner in which a weapon is carried (taking care not to load up the method with all manner of expensive restrictions, delays, or elite favoritism). Most states recognize concealed, some recognize both open and concealed, and CA at one time recognized open carry only. But a state cannot deny "both" means of carry.

which is to own a flintlock if you are in a well regulated militia (there's a reason that comes 1st in the amendment) so you can fight the British when they come back to claim their colonies....which they already did in 1812.

...the law of the land has, since 1792, recognize the "unorganized militia" as pretty much everyone who is considered an adult. This has been expanded to include women and minorities and covers about everyone up to an age I don't recall. I believe it was initially 45.

Consider Madison's Federalist #46: http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/federalist_no_4.php
...to get a sense of who the militia was intended to be.

"Arms" are. What are "arms" in 1792? They didn't even have spiral bore yet!

Why do 2A advocates pretend to be so obtuse?

you mean rifling, as in a rifle? They did. The British military simply didn't use them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle#Historical_overview

Of course, not all militaries used flintlocks or firearms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

and was invented in the 15th century- before Columbus sailed to the west.

One great advantage the colonials had was the Kentucky rifle which was fairly common. It gave them a range advantage over the British troops using smoothbore muskets. The muskets were effective to only 50 yards, 100 in mass volley. By contrast a skilled rifleman could hit a target at 200+yards.

...firearms of the day often use ammo over .50 cal which is illegal today. One of the available "arms" was the Cookson Rifle. A repeating rifle which was produced with magazines holding 7 to 9 rounds. Included as "arms" would be swords and sabres, cannon loaded with explosive balls or even grape shot, explosives, lances and spears, halberds and various axes and maces and morning stars.

Rifling dates back to the mid-16th century.

So by your reasoning does the NSA's collection of "metadata" not require a warrant as there were no cell phones in 1791?

It's been only 50 years since the Miranda ruling. Do we need to back up on that as well?

The Founders would not be at all surprised by the performance of today's small arms.

Believe they should be taken seriously?

"They didn't even have spiral bore yet!"

"Rifled firearms saw their first major combat usage in the American colonies during the Seven Years war"

Using a computer and the interwebz to exercise your 1st amendment right to freedom of speech, to insist that the 2nd needs to be held to 1791 standards.

Hand cranked printing presses and town criers too?

Ironic, funny, short sighted, choose one.

There were "arms" tho' and their 18th century idea of arms is what they meant.

A hand cranked press produced a piece of paper with words on it just like lithography with the same effect. Arms today have a slightly different effect.

What a lousy absurd analogy!


Besides, we've passed laws about the way you can use computer, no? And the availability of what is printed.... even if it's on aa hand cranked press. Porn for minors anyone?

Again....why do 2A advocates act so obtuse? Why do they ignore context?

Density of thought maybe?

No wonder gun control fans continue to lose in court, in elections and among the general population. 25 years now since the last federal gun control laws were passed. Keep up the good work.

Equating freedom of speech with the tools available in 1791, makes about as much sense as the stupid Flintlock analogy, so beloved by the benevolently less informed.

Alas, repetition does not equal truth.

The reference was to the article and the respondents who are not addressing the article. And that is truthful.

I think you'll find it clearly tagged as "Opinion." Though I'm sure it aligns with what you'd like to consider true.

others have differing opinions, should those be held as the truth also?

Keep pretending, and try not to shoot off your toe and keep your toys out of the hands of your kids and criminals and loonies.

and the SCOTUS has confirmed it.

and that corporations are people.


So what's you're point?

The SCOTUS has confirmed that the 2A is an individual right not connected to militia service.

and corporations are people. Have you found your point yet?

Bit it doesn't change the fact that the 2A is an individual right.

Works for me, as long as it "well-regulated".

Yes, a well regulated one! There is a reason that's the very 1st words of the amendment.


Then there's that pesky issue of the definition of "arms".

18th century ones.

Controllers keep saying "a well regulate militia" allows them to create gun laws but they cannot cite what "well regulated" means.

Who cares what it specifically meant in the 18th century? Besides 'well regulated" means it's regulated.... with regulations.

This is the 21st century. That's why we make laws to tweak things and make them viable for today.

Perhaps what we need are federal subsidies for purchasing military grade rifles and getting military aged males enough range time to become proficient.

Prove it!

Besides, it's still not the 18th century and "Arms" do not mean the same thing as it did then. You don't get to use 18th definitions in the 1st part and 21st century definitions in the last part.

Good grief, 2nd amendment nuts are ridiculous.

to the First and Fourth Amendments? Specifically electronic communications are not protected under freedom of the press and your electronic data is not secure against against unreasonable searches and seizure, only "papers"?

It's not the 18th century, "press" and "papers" do not mean the same things as they did then.

Obtuser and obtuser.....


The way something is printed does not have major effects on the reader.



But go ahead... pretend the Founding Fathers meant any bozo can buy an uzi in some gun show in rural OK.

but it is beyond obtuse to say one Amendment is limited to exactly what was available at the time of writing the BoR but other Amendments include modern technology.

Just as a modern computer is analogous to a hand cranked press, a modern rifle is analogous to a flintlock musket.

Prove it!

And you can only use a moveable type printing press.

Oh enough with the unrelated printing press baloney!

You guys are ridiculous.

If "press" encompasses more than 18c. moveable-type printing presses and includes modern mass media then how is it "arms" should not include modern military small arms?

You're picking and choosing words and redefining them not based on any objective standard but only to satisfy your agenda.

It's pretty rare for the Court to violate stare decisis. Moreover, even without legal considerations, the language of the amendment is such that the "militia only" argument is invalidated, as the RKBA is ascribed directly to "the people" (and not a subset thereof).

in his dissent, stated that all the Justices believed that the 2A is an individual right. His dissent was to allow regulation by states and cities.

.. that the Supreme Court isn't full of shit on this issue (and many others) and that it cannot be changed to follow what the Constitution originally said. Sure, all the idiots want to ignore the original intent and purpose of the amendment and the Supreme Court writ lets them get away with it but it's not what was written.

Either you accept current reading per SC decision and work to change what you disagree with, or you simply blather on and on online.

Hmm, seems choice made.

The NRA was for reasonable gun control laws until the right wing loonies took over.

While the SCOTUS has the final say in legal terms, in linguistic terms, they're a non-entity. Linguistically, the language of the amendment quite clearly ascribes the RKBA to "the people," not the militia (or any other subset of "the people&quot . It ascribes the right to the entire set, thus causing all individual members of that set to possess the right. Any attempt to move to a "collective right" scenario would require alteration of the language of the amendment.

Let's say that tomorrow, a practical, reliable gun were developed that (along with its ammo) was totally invisible to security scanners.

Or... what if some micro-ammunition was invented that would let handgun carriers go about with 1,000 lethal rounds in one clip?

Or... what if some sort of ammo (rocket-assist?) were invented that would be effective through six inches of concrete?

All covered by 2A?

(And before you say how ridiculous these examples are, compare a 9 mm. automatic with a high-capacity magazine to a musket.)

Last edited Mon Oct 26, 2015, 10:45 PM - Edit history (1)

that will make a difference in 2015...

In 10 years or so - after another 100,000 citizens are murdered - maybe society will be different enough to allow responsible citizens to simply overrule the gun activists, but ... not now.

Happy, as a US expat, that this stuff is not even on my kids radar... they've never even heard of a school shooting... heck, we can leave our car unlocked and have left our front door unlocked over night so many times - accidentally - and aren't panicked by it...

No armed home invasions, no police shootings, no school shootings, no gun rampages... nothing... great feeling....

There are some insignificant places that don't accomplish anything where little happens, but I would hardly hold those up as a model for a nation. More like hideouts where people can pretend.

The people here have guns because they know what kind of country they have built, and they are afraid.

Until you fix that, and the people give up their guns voluntarily, there will be no change. You will drive it underground and make it even more dangerous.

Prohibition has never worked.

but it can't work 100% of the time...

Alcohol prohibition is not a good benchmark for a variety of reasons:

- the vast majority of Americans drink
- people can - and did - widely make their own booze
- drinking is frequently a social thing - by and large owning a gun is not

We HAVE prohibited many things to GREAT success however - here's two easy examples:

- pedophilia
- military weaponry in civilian hands

Other things we have GREATLY reduced by making them a lot harder to sustain, such as cigarettes.

Laws DO work, to a large degree, and many people would NOT break the law to own a gun, for obvious reasons.

I do find it funny that the same people that are for the death penalty as a deterrent claims that laws are meaningless.

there wasn't a market for military weapons.
However, people who don't break gun laws also don't break laws against armed robbery and murder. People who do break laws against armed robbery and murder, are not going to be deterred by gun laws.

a lot to be desired.

Parents often mistake what they have taught their child when they punish and prohibit. Mostly what they teach them is to not get caught.

There is pedophila, and the posession of military hardware, all around us. I can drive 20 miles from here and buy a hand grenade, for cryin' out loud. We didn't stop anything, just moved it elsewhere.

One can pretend things are not like they are, but the rest of us have to deal with the world as it is.

You ban cigarettes, but 15% of the people are still addictive types. Despite all the hype and all the years of bans, about 15% of the population still smokes. Ban them completely, and they will find something to smoke or inject or swallow while you go off and pat yourself on the back.

Fuck, marijuana was not only banned, but in the rush to purse racist policies, they lied about it and put it on a schedule with heroin. Yet I can buy weed at the junior high across the street.

I find it funny that people believe themselves when they think anyone listens to them as they try to prohibit something. Especially their kids.

“With guns you can kill terrorists, with education you can kill terrorism.” 
― Malala Yousafzai

You can beat people up, chain them, keep them in jai, shoot them, blow them up, and they will still find a way to do what they want.

If you use education, and THEY decide to stop it, then it will end. Not before.

some things, things like weaponry - like hand grenades - are extremely hard to get in most places where they are banned... you may know some guy, but I can guarantee that I don't know anyone in America that does know someone that can get me a grenade.

If I could buy them over the counter at a gun shop they'd be used in these school massacres.

Prohibition has worked.

Cigarettes... we've reduced usage by almost 60%, by education, tougher laws, and particularly higher prices, making them prohibitively expensive. You say there will always be 15% addicted, well... imagine if we could lower gun violence by 60%. How many 10s of thousands of lives would you save in a decade?

There's also NOT pedophilia all around you, relative to non-prohibited sex. Pretending that prohibiting pedophilia hasn't made it less common is a bit of a joke.

Laws DO work. Obviously. If you banned hand guns the number of people willing to illegally have handguns would be MUCH lower than the percentage that legally do have them now.

I always laugh at the tired old idea that nothing can be stopped by the law, because of criminals, like all of society of criminal. It's not. Most of society if not interested in hand grenades, bootleg cigarettes or murder. And most of society would not be interested in illegal handguns... in the same way that most gun owners didn't secretly buy black market assault weapons during the AWB - and bit of prohibition that worked.

the people who obey the law are not the same people who are likely to do drive by shootings. The people who do murder, rob etc. are not going to obey gun laws anymore than they do anywhere else. You either don't understand the concept because of blindly following an ideology like a religion, or you are really about a culture war and not about saving lives.
BTW, heroin deaths still doubled over the past two decades.

most shootings are not drive by shootings... you should watch the 72 hours hooting tracker for a few days and see exactly what's going on...

Heck a TODDLER shoots someone in America EVERY WEEK:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/

So, the whole notion that it's just criminals shooting people in America is nonsense... a HUGE percentage of shootings is also domestic violence... and MANY people are first time murderers...

I do find it funny that all pro-gun advocates are happy to link gun ownership and heroin addiction... lol.

VPC's bogus "concealed carry killers" as an only source? That isn't journalism. It fact, it violates journalism's code of ethics. His source is also full of shit. Did you look at the source he used? Himself without a link. Problem was, most them were not CCW holders. Not only is he unethical, he is either stupid or dishonest. I lean towards the latter.

According to the FBI and other valid criminology studies, most shootings are criminals are killing each other usually gang related.

Most killers and victims have criminal records. How many of those DV shootings are the abuser being the shooting victim?
Every murderer is a first time murder at one point.
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf

Do you mean the shooter tracker? It is ran by a couple of guys on Reddit in a forum called "guns are cool". Basically, their mission in life is demonize legal gun ownership.
The FBI defines a mass shooting as four dead victims in one incident and a firearm was used. Shooter tracker well, here is an audit
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/3o9adl/auditing_the_mass_shooting_tracker/

BTW, meet the guy that runs the website
https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/380c0o/welcome_to_our_new_mods/crrau5k

Sorry dude.

of what he/she is talking about.

Not just you, everyone else that DOES know what they're talking about as well. Funny thing, that. There are a few antis hereabouts that actually know what the story is with the AWB, yet are they here correcting their grossly mistaken colleague?

Nope.


The silence is deafening.

proof that contravenes what you say is all around us. As well in research docs and government reports.

That you choose to deny it, split hairs, play silly semantic games and just move goalposts so that you can never be wrong suggests that your ego is more important than the facts. So...

go waste someone else's time.

His rifle would have been perfectly legal to buy and own during the federal AWB.

Millions of armed people, that desire to keep their guns, and does not give a rat's ass about what a suit in a far off city says??



BTW, my cars and front doors are unlocked all the time as well. That does not make one special. Just "normal' around here.

The suit be very very angry with them, and will write them a letter telling them how angry he is...on maig stationary no doubt.

Last edited Tue Oct 27, 2015, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

What would be better though:

A campaign of some sort against Bloomberg/newtown, using letters written on cut and flattened supersize drink cups:


Something looking like that.

Do you know where your toys are?

Toys? I'm a grown man, I don't have toys, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

First, before you start in on me as a "gun grabber," you need to know:
-- I own and use guns. Lots of guns. Two gun safes full.
-- I hunt and shoot competitively.
-- I have carry permits from four states.
-- ALL my guns stay locked in the safes, with trigger locks, and the ammo is locked separately.
-- I'm a retired Army infantry officer who has forgotten more about guns than you'll ever know. The last time I carried a firearm was as an airborne brigade commander in Desert Storm where I was in the company of about 3,500 young lads, all of whom were packing lots of heat.

Second, you need to know that, NO, SCOTUS did not say any such thing. You gunnuts like to cite Heller v. DC as saying you have an individual right to carry all the firearms you want, anywhere you want. Not true. None other than Justice Scalia wrote, in Heller v. DC, that nothing in this decision should be interpreted to mean that local governments do not have the right to limit the sale, possession, and use of firearms -- Scalia's opinion recognizes and gives full force to that "well-regulated" part of the 2A that you gunnuts like to ignore.

I never said SCOTUS ruled that carrying a firearm is a constitutional right, what I've said many times is that Heller v DC ruled that the 2A confers an individual right to own a firearm not connected to militia service.

I'm also a retired Army officer, I flew helicopters in Vietnam, I commanded a squadron of Apache's during Desert Storm.

Sir, your honor and reputation for gun knowledge have been impugned!

he has his opinion, I have mine, no need for violence.

I was a 11B2P and on jump status at the same time.

And I'm not a gun nut. Just a gun owning Democrat.

used by many here at DU. So, zero points for that.

You gunnuts like to cite Heller v. DC as saying you have an individual right to carry all the firearms you want, anywhere you want

I'm a retired Army infantry officer who has forgotten more about guns than you'll ever know. The last time I carried a firearm was as an airborne brigade commander in Desert Storm where I was in the company of about 3,500 young lads, all of whom were packing lots of heat.

Maybe you missed my post.

Which Airborne Infantry Brigade did you command in Desert Storm?

Which Airborne Infantry Brigade did you command?

I've noticed over the years that antigun posters that loudly claim to be ex-military tend
to disappear when asked awkward and/or inconvenient questions...

I hate posers.

They always claim to serve in units that they either don't have the courage to serve in or weren't good enough to make it.

Heck I even consider my snowblower and lawn "tractor" toys...

still have leverage in Congress.

There are a lot of silly expressions being thrown around.

that's not something I'm worried about in the least.
Most of the silly expressions being thrown around are from the extreme gun control faction, not from the pro 2A side.

There's dozens of great manufactures of pistols reliable enough to bet your life on.