Chicago Suburb Bans Assault Weapons And High-Capacity Magazines

[northernvalk]

Wow, this debate is always a heated one but NON of you are looking at it from the outside.  The USA fails the "eye" test horribly!! Forget every other shooting death, the school shootings alone are enough to create masses of anti gun fanatics. As a legal and law abiding gun owner in ANOTHER country, even I am affected by this carnage as our privileges are being curtailed just because we live next to you!! I can own MOST guns and use them for all their designed purposes, yet our school children are not being mowed down in jaw dropping numbers! WHY? I am not stupid enough to blame the gun.  I am smart enough to know there is a larger problem that needs solving! Is it more money for public education so that people don't get marginalized? Is it stricter laws on storage and acquisition of firearms, I would say YES, there is no way that could do any "damage".  Australia is a great example of going to far and unless you guys figure this out and "solve" the REAL problems within your society, guns will continue to get blamed because they are the easy target in a system that needs help in way more places than one....good luck, my gun rights kinda depend on it!!!!

[Jess from VA]

While the Meathead may be a general 2d Amend supporter, I believe that he believes that some additional restrictions in firearm types, magazines, and maybe a few other restrictions are called for (and maybe his view of the 2d Amend is even consistent with those restrictions).  I think he does not believe in (or support) total disarmament, or even anything close to that.  But we can in general no longer safely believe in or trust many (or any) who say they only want just a little more of our freedom.  And with good reason.

This issue has become one of....  you are either with us (completely), or you are against us.  And I, like I think most 2d Amend men, feel the same way about it.  We are done compromising away our rights and freedom.  For many long decades, all this compromise has only ever been in one direction (not a good one).  The Clinton era assault weapons ban was not compromised away to our benefit, it just died a natural death, and there wasn't enough leftist support to continue it.

The Meathead may be more friend than foe on general firearm rights, but if he stands against ARs and their ordinary 30rd mags, and (presently) fully lawful private firearm transfers (with no federal paper or records), then he is standing on the wrong side of the battle lines.  And he should not be surprised at being treated with the same disrespect and disdain as any of the absolute worst prohibitionist/disarmament people on that same side of that line.  That's the way it is, and that's the way it's going to be for the indefinite future.  

We 2d Amend men didn't make it this way, the other side did with their decades long assault on our rights and freedom.  And WE have stood up to the plate as we should have, and taken the battle to the enemy as we should have (and they are the enemy).

And really, after all this time and hundreds of threads, the Meathead should know better than trying to change anybody's mind here on the subject.  But the 1st Amend is almost as important and the 2d, and those of us who claim to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, should not try to impinge on other citizens rights to free speech, however wrong or disagreeable. (and also follow the rules of the road on this fine forum)

I hope I have not got any of this wrong Rob, and it was not my intent to offend you.  Only to do a little peacemaking (and explaining), both ways.

[Gavin_Sons]

I bought another AR today  guy at work needed momey so I ended up with a 350 dollar 300 blackout with 300 rounds of ammo. Hope it does notjump up and start killing people. But first it would have to figure a way out of my safe and how to load itself and then point and pull the trigger all by itself.  think I'll go tomorrow and get me a surpressor for it. The deer like to save their hearing.   

[Psychotic Bovine]

What Scalia wrote in Heller about military weapons doesn't seem like he is saying they should be limited:

" We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

[northernvalk]

Guys, smart ass comments are not providing ANY solution to the actual problem...What is causing people to commit mass murder? We know its not a gun fault but at the end of the day ita still a problem being blamed on guns! Seriously, why are there so many mass murders compared to a country like ours with guns, dense urban areas and underfunded public educatiom? We even have the same entertainment, sports, general culture etc. You want to keep your current gun rights, solve the real problem, SOON!

[Gavin_Sons]

Guys, smart ass comments are not providing ANY solution to the actual problem...What is causing people to commit mass murder? We know its not a gun fault but at the end of the day ita still a problem being blamed on guns! Seriously, why are there so many mass murders compared to a country like ours with guns, dense urban areas and underfunded public educatiom? We even have the same entertainment, sports, general culture etc. You want to keep your current gun rights, solve the real problem, SOON!

Have you considered population? Your whole country has the population of what? California? Spread over a land mass the size of the US? Hmmmm, of course we will have more murders.

[Gavin_Sons]

If you don't like my smart ass comments don't read them. Hell, I might splurge and buy another AR tomorrow. Have always wanted a 300 win mag in an AR platform.

[The emperor has no clothes]

While the Meathead may be a general 2d Amend supporter, I believe that he believes that some additional restrictions in firearm types, magazines, and maybe a few other restrictions are called for (and maybe his view of the 2d Amend is even consistent with those restrictions).  I think he does not believe in (or support) total disarmament, or even anything close to that.  But we can in general no longer safely believe in or trust many (or any) who say they only want just a little more of our freedom.  And with good reason.

This issue has become one of....  you are either with us (completely), or you are against us.  And I, like I think most 2d Amend men, feel the same way about it.  We are done compromising away our rights and freedom.  For many long decades, all this compromise has only ever been in one direction (not a good one).  The Clinton era assault weapons ban was not compromised away to our benefit, it just died a natural death, and there wasn't enough leftist support to continue it.

The Meathead may be more friend than foe on general firearm rights, but if he stands against ARs and their ordinary 30rd mags, and (presently) fully lawful private firearm transfers (with no federal paper or records), then he is standing on the wrong side of the battle lines.  And he should not be surprised at being treated with the same disrespect and disdain as any of the absolute worst prohibitionist/disarmament people on that same side of that line.  That's the way it is, and that's the way it's going to be for the indefinite future.  

We 2d Amend men didn't make it this way, the other side did with their decades long assault on our rights and freedom.  And WE have stood up to the plate as we should have, and taken the battle to the enemy as we should have (and they are the enemy).

And really, after all this time and hundreds of threads, the Meathead should know better than trying to change anybody's mind here on the subject.  But the 1st Amend is almost as important and the 2d, and those of us who claim to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, should not try to impinge on other citizens rights to free speech, however wrong or disagreeable. (and also follow the rules of the road on this fine forum)

I hope I have not got any of this wrong Rob, and it was not my intent to offend you.  Only to do a little peacemaking (and explaining), both ways.

Jess, you didn't offend me. You got more right than wrong. I have no illusions of changing any minds here. I do speak my mind on things that I feel are important to our country. Please indulge me a question. Do you feel Scalia was correct in stating there are limits to the 2nd Amendment ?

[Psychotic Bovine]

Guys, smart ass comments are not providing ANY solution to the actual problem...What is causing people to commit mass murder? We know its not a gun fault but at the end of the day ita still a problem being blamed on guns! Seriously, why are there so many mass murders compared to a country like ours with guns, dense urban areas and underfunded public educatiom? We even have the same entertainment, sports, general culture etc. You want to keep your current gun rights, solve the real problem, SOON!

Unfortunately, it's not an easy solution.  Read Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".  He had the solution:  genetic engineering and behavior modification to limit "undesirable" behavior.

The simple truth:  our basic freedoms in this country are a double edged sword.  The Constitution permits the exercise of basic human free will.  The bad news?   The Constitution permits the exercise of basic human free will.  

Sure, we can ban certain firearms, we can even ban all firearms (logistically how would they collect them all, but that's a whole different issue).  Then, after the crime rate continues on, someone will come up with the 1984-esque "cameras in all homes", let's monitor everyone (with a good enough program, this could be accomplished through automation).  Then when people start going where there are no cameras, someone else will come up with another "solution".

"Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave."  - Malcolm Reynolds, from the movie Serenity.

[Gavin_Sons]

While the Meathead may be a general 2d Amend supporter, I believe that he believes that some additional restrictions in firearm types, magazines, and maybe a few other restrictions are called for (and maybe his view of the 2d Amend is even consistent with those restrictions).  I think he does not believe in (or support) total disarmament, or even anything close to that.  But we can in general no longer safely believe in or trust many (or any) who say they only want just a little more of our freedom.  And with good reason.

This issue has become one of....  you are either with us (completely), or you are against us.  And I, like I think most 2d Amend men, feel the same way about it.  We are done compromising away our rights and freedom.  For many long decades, all this compromise has only ever been in one direction (not a good one).  The Clinton era assault weapons ban was not compromised away to our benefit, it just died a natural death, and there wasn't enough leftist support to continue it.

The Meathead may be more friend than foe on general firearm rights, but if he stands against ARs and their ordinary 30rd mags, and (presently) fully lawful private firearm transfers (with no federal paper or records), then he is standing on the wrong side of the battle lines.  And he should not be surprised at being treated with the same disrespect and disdain as any of the absolute worst prohibitionist/disarmament people on that same side of that line.  That's the way it is, and that's the way it's going to be for the indefinite future.  

We 2d Amend men didn't make it this way, the other side did with their decades long assault on our rights and freedom.  And WE have stood up to the plate as we should have, and taken the battle to the enemy as we should have (and they are the enemy).

And really, after all this time and hundreds of threads, the Meathead should know better than trying to change anybody's mind here on the subject.  But the 1st Amend is almost as important and the 2d, and those of us who claim to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, should not try to impinge on other citizens rights to free speech, however wrong or disagreeable. (and also follow the rules of the road on this fine forum)

I hope I have not got any of this wrong Rob, and it was not my intent to offend you.  Only to do a little peacemaking (and explaining), both ways.

Jess, you didn't offend me. You got more right than wrong. I have no illusions of changing any minds here. I do speak my mind on things that I feel are important to our country. Please indulge me a question. Do you feel Scalia was correct in stating there are limits to the 2nd Amendment ?

We do have limits. More than I would like. It's amusing that you think we have no limits to what we can own. Yes you can get most anything you want but you have to jump through so many hoops and pay so much it is not worth it to me anyway. Any little thing will get you denied. Had a buddy that was buying a full auto 9mm and got denied because he had a speeding ticket on his record. No full auto 9mm for him.

[Chrisj CMA]

Unfortunately the answer to this problem does not want to be heard. Even mentioning it infuriates those that are the central part of the problem. Things will get worse. More lives will be lost.  It’s a shame. But blaming it on guns only furthers the agenda of the ones that started this whole problem.

[The emperor has no clothes]

While the Meathead may be a general 2d Amend supporter, I believe that he believes that some additional restrictions in firearm types, magazines, and maybe a few other restrictions are called for (and maybe his view of the 2d Amend is even consistent with those restrictions).  I think he does not believe in (or support) total disarmament, or even anything close to that.  But we can in general no longer safely believe in or trust many (or any) who say they only want just a little more of our freedom.  And with good reason.

This issue has become one of....  you are either with us (completely), or you are against us.  And I, like I think most 2d Amend men, feel the same way about it.  We are done compromising away our rights and freedom.  For many long decades, all this compromise has only ever been in one direction (not a good one).  The Clinton era assault weapons ban was not compromised away to our benefit, it just died a natural death, and there wasn't enough leftist support to continue it.

The Meathead may be more friend than foe on general firearm rights, but if he stands against ARs and their ordinary 30rd mags, and (presently) fully lawful private firearm transfers (with no federal paper or records), then he is standing on the wrong side of the battle lines.  And he should not be surprised at being treated with the same disrespect and disdain as any of the absolute worst prohibitionist/disarmament people on that same side of that line.  That's the way it is, and that's the way it's going to be for the indefinite future.  

We 2d Amend men didn't make it this way, the other side did with their decades long assault on our rights and freedom.  And WE have stood up to the plate as we should have, and taken the battle to the enemy as we should have (and they are the enemy).

And really, after all this time and hundreds of threads, the Meathead should know better than trying to change anybody's mind here on the subject.  But the 1st Amend is almost as important and the 2d, and those of us who claim to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, should not try to impinge on other citizens rights to free speech, however wrong or disagreeable. (and also follow the rules of the road on this fine forum)

I hope I have not got any of this wrong Rob, and it was not my intent to offend you.  Only to do a little peacemaking (and explaining), both ways.

Jess, you didn't offend me. You got more right than wrong. I have no illusions of changing any minds here. I do speak my mind on things that I feel are important to our country. Please indulge me a question. Do you feel Scalia was correct in stating there are limits to the 2nd Amendment ?

We do have limits. More than I would like. It's amusing that you think we have no limits to what we can own. Yes you can get most anything you want but you have to jump through so many hoops and pay so much it is not worth it to me anyway. Any little thing will get you denied. Had a buddy that was buying a full auto 9mm and got denied because he had a speeding ticket on his record. No full auto 9mm for him.

Gavin, I have tried to explain myself many times to you. Evidently my words come out as gibberish to you, because you never seem to listen to what I actually say. For the sake of the club I propose we cease communications.

[Gavin_Sons]

While the Meathead may be a general 2d Amend supporter, I believe that he believes that some additional restrictions in firearm types, magazines, and maybe a few other restrictions are called for (and maybe his view of the 2d Amend is even consistent with those restrictions).  I think he does not believe in (or support) total disarmament, or even anything close to that.  But we can in general no longer safely believe in or trust many (or any) who say they only want just a little more of our freedom.  And with good reason.

This issue has become one of....  you are either with us (completely), or you are against us.  And I, like I think most 2d Amend men, feel the same way about it.  We are done compromising away our rights and freedom.  For many long decades, all this compromise has only ever been in one direction (not a good one).  The Clinton era assault weapons ban was not compromised away to our benefit, it just died a natural death, and there wasn't enough leftist support to continue it.

The Meathead may be more friend than foe on general firearm rights, but if he stands against ARs and their ordinary 30rd mags, and (presently) fully lawful private firearm transfers (with no federal paper or records), then he is standing on the wrong side of the battle lines.  And he should not be surprised at being treated with the same disrespect and disdain as any of the absolute worst prohibitionist/disarmament people on that same side of that line.  That's the way it is, and that's the way it's going to be for the indefinite future.  

We 2d Amend men didn't make it this way, the other side did with their decades long assault on our rights and freedom.  And WE have stood up to the plate as we should have, and taken the battle to the enemy as we should have (and they are the enemy).

And really, after all this time and hundreds of threads, the Meathead should know better than trying to change anybody's mind here on the subject.  But the 1st Amend is almost as important and the 2d, and those of us who claim to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, should not try to impinge on other citizens rights to free speech, however wrong or disagreeable. (and also follow the rules of the road on this fine forum)

I hope I have not got any of this wrong Rob, and it was not my intent to offend you.  Only to do a little peacemaking (and explaining), both ways.

Jess, you didn't offend me. You got more right than wrong. I have no illusions of changing any minds here. I do speak my mind on things that I feel are important to our country. Please indulge me a question. Do you feel Scalia was correct in stating there are limits to the 2nd Amendment ?

We do have limits. More than I would like. It's amusing that you think we have no limits to what we can own. Yes you can get most anything you want but you have to jump through so many hoops and pay so much it is not worth it to me anyway. Any little thing will get you denied. Had a buddy that was buying a full auto 9mm and got denied because he had a speeding ticket on his record. No full auto 9mm for him.

Gavin, I have tried to explain myself many times to you. Evidently my words come out as gibberish to you, because you never seem to listen to what I actually say. For the sake of the club I propose we cease communications.

Still avoiding the real answers? You say we don't have limits. Yet we do have limits. Who do you think you are fooling?
And about ceasing communication with you... Noted and ignored.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Thank you.

[Jess from VA]

What Scalia wrote in Heller about military weapons doesn't seem like he is saying they should be limited:

" We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

YES, I think you have it, and Scalia had it.     That the 2d Amend likely does not cover bombers and nukes and tanks and subs or maybe even 20mm cannon (which a couple can be carried by one strong man)... but it absolutely does cover man portable small arms in common use.  And in common use by both our military and police as well.... although they get select fire machine guns and we do not (without a tax stamp and $40K cash).  They did have heavy and light cannon in the revolution, and no reading of the 2d Amend can fairly said to fit those within "keep and bear arms."  

There is simply no fair or reasonable reading of the 2d Amend, it's legislative history and founder's intent, that it can be read to exclude modern day AR15s with ordinary magazines (and the full gamut of other military style man portable semiauto rifles and carbines).  If it is ever read this way, it is simply rendered (largely) useless for it's historically intended purpose of the people being able to stand against tyranny.  And any state or federal judge who ever says otherwise is a liar and an enemy of the people, pure and simple.

Interestingly, while the Redcoats were almost completely armed with smooth bore muskets, a healthy number of colonists had rifled barrel long guns, more technologically advanced weapons of the day.  And the whole Revolution was kicked off with the Redcoats marching to confiscate a local armory of such state of the art weapons.  

And the 3d Amend, almost never discussed in US history, but important as hell to the founders, was to prevent the nasty practice of forced quartering of troops in private citizens houses (interestingly, reading that amendment, congress left that open ended in time of war).

While the founders may have had no idea of the small arms that would be developed and carried in common use 2-300 years later, it is undeniable that they intended the people to have the inalienable right to keep and bear the same arms being carried by standing armies of the day.  And we have already been effectively deprived of select fire machine guns, so hands off all semiautos, forever.  Or until the 2d Amend is revoked or rewritten.

And Judges, who take oaths to support and defend the Constitution too, should never interject either liberal or conservative political philosophy into their work.  Good judging should never be left or right, it should only be right and not wrong. (no pun intended)

Rob, here is my answer on Scalia and the 2d Amend.  There certainly are limits (outside all man portable firearms carried by police and standing armies everywhere, or at least in our own country).

[The emperor has no clothes]

Jess  then we really aren't that far apart. Bridging that small gap may be impossible with us though.

[Jess from VA]

I already knew that.  And it's not really a small gap.  What we have now (and they want to take) already puts we the people at a distinct disadvantage from all the forces the police and military could bring to bear against us.  This is the only relevant issue to me.  Mass and school shootings are very unfortunate, but have no bearing on the people's constitutional rights (nor should they). I would not feel differently if 100,000 lives were lost (to crazy people).  We are a nation of laws, not of emotions. (So far)

You only get one vote, just like me. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

You only get one vote, just like me. 

Uh....you forget I'm a liberal. I vote early and I vote often. 

[Robert]

I looked at Meats posted stats and its misleading at best. The other thing is if you take the stat at face value there are only 2100 more deaths by guns than in 2012 in 2016 and the 2 categories that increased the most were firearms not stated up 1500 and handguns up about 500 and they do have categories for rifles and handguns and shotguns. There are roughly 300 million guns in the US and that is less than .001% increase in deaths due to guns. While gun ownership has also increased. the PEW Research Center released a survey showing that gun ownership by households is up to 44% — a 7-percentage point increase in the past two years. Another 5% of households won’t reveal whether they own a gun.  Yet, not a single mainstream American media headline has announced the increase.

Even without the guns stats if you look at this table the violent crime rate is cut in half and the population has increased. In fact every crime rate on this table is down a significant amount even murder and manslaughter is down with more population and more guns.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-1

If you compare motorcycle ownership and accidents you will see a relational increase much higher than the relationship to gun ownership and deaths caused by guns.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I looked at Meats posted stats and its misleading at best. The other thing is if you take the stat at face value there are only 2100 more deaths by guns than in 2012 in 2016 and the 2 categories that increased the most were firearms not stated and handguns and they do have categories for rifles and handguns and shotguns. There are roughly 300 million guns in the US and that is less than .001% increase in deaths due to guns. While gun ownership has also increased.

Even without the guns stats if you look at this table the violent crime rate is cut in half and the population has increased. In fact every crime rate on this table is down a significant amount even murder and manslaughter is down with more population and more guns. This is the same sight that Meat posted.  

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-1

So, if we have more guns . And slightly more gun deaths. How does that make us safer ?

[northernvalk]

Guys, smart ass comments are not providing ANY solution to the actual problem...What is causing people to commit mass murder? We know its not a gun fault but at the end of the day ita still a problem being blamed on guns! Seriously, why are there so many mass murders compared to a country like ours with guns, dense urban areas and underfunded public educatiom? We even have the same entertainment, sports, general culture etc. You want to keep your current gun rights, solve the real problem, SOON!

Have you considered population? Your whole country has the population of what? California? Spread over a land mass the size of the US? Hmmmm, of course we will have more murders.

Gavin, please dont sound so ignorant to world geography. Our cities have similar population density to yours, the vast majority of our citizens live in urban areas. Per capita murder rates take that out of consideration. You have a problem and guns are not the cause of that problem. If you value your gun rights AND the lives of your innocent citizens, you need to get some brain power into this fight to make progress against the underlying issues.

[Robert]

So, if we have more guns . And slightly more gun deaths. How does that make us safer ?

Because we have more population, more guns and the population increase is proportionally way higher than the increase in gun deaths. The category of other guns is also questionable since its not handguns, rifles, or shotguns. That is the major area we have seen an increase if we take out other guns it would only be 500 deaths more in 4 years. The other fact is shotgun deaths have actually declined. We also have a decrease in every other crime out there in every category by as much as 300 percent. Including violent crimes and assaults. Was this due to the increase in guns?

Your stat does not say justified or unjustified shootings either. So we could have some of the shootings in your stat that were actually for the good guys.

[Serk]

If I may postulate a bit, IMHO the fundamental problem is a difference of what we see the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Many on the left seem to incorrectly believe it was to preserve the right of simple arms for sporting, hunting, and basic home defense.

Whereas the original intent was not those things. Those things were so self-evident to the architects of this great nation they wouldn't have given a second thought to guaranteeing the right to the tools to accomplish those things.

The original intent of the 2nd amendment is to make sure the people have the appropriate tools at hand that, if needed, they can rise up and overthrow a corrupt or too-powerful government.

So, as long as we see the entire purpose of the 2nd so diametrically differently, we'll never come to an agreement on "what to do" about the so called problem.

[The emperor has no clothes]

If I may postulate a bit, IMHO the fundamental problem is a difference of what we see the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Many on the left seem to incorrectly believe it was to preserve the right of simple arms for sporting, hunting, and basic home defense.

Whereas the original intent was not those things. Those things were so self-evident to the architects of this great nation they wouldn't have given a second thought to guaranteeing the right to the tools to accomplish those things.

The original intent of the 2nd amendment is to make sure the people have the appropriate tools at hand that, if needed, they can rise up and overthrow a corrupt or too-powerful government.

So, as long as we see the entire purpose of the 2nd so diametrically differently, we'll never come to an agreement on "what to do" about the so called problem.

I disagree. I think just as many on the left understand the reason for the 2nd Amendment as do on the right. Now there may be more on the left that don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, but that's different.

[Serk]

If I may postulate a bit, IMHO the fundamental problem is a difference of what we see the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Many on the left seem to incorrectly believe it was to preserve the right of simple arms for sporting, hunting, and basic home defense.

Whereas the original intent was not those things. Those things were so self-evident to the architects of this great nation they wouldn't have given a second thought to guaranteeing the right to the tools to accomplish those things.

The original intent of the 2nd amendment is to make sure the people have the appropriate tools at hand that, if needed, they can rise up and overthrow a corrupt or too-powerful government.

So, as long as we see the entire purpose of the 2nd so diametrically differently, we'll never come to an agreement on "what to do" about the so called problem.

I disagree. I think just as many on the left understand the reason for the 2nd Amendment as do on the right. Now there may be more on the left that don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, but that's different.

I'm trying to not put words in your mouth; you agree that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was for the people to have weapons of war in their possession to be able to rise up and overthrow the government if needed, right?

You just think that's no longer needed or something?

[Jess from VA]

I always find accurate statistical studies interesting (on subjects interesting to me, not like how many died sucking on Tide Pods), but lets be clear here, statistical studies are irrelevant to constitutional rights.

Advocacy and political posturing can certainly be helped (or hurt) by accurate statistical studies.

But the Constitution can only be changed in strict accordance with constitutional rules (none of which involves statistical studies).

[Robert]

I always find accurate statistical studies interesting (on subjects interesting to me, not like how many died sucking on Tide Pods), but lets be clear here, statistical studies are irrelevant to constitutional rights.

Advocacy and political posturing can certainly be helped (or hurt) by accurate statistical studies.

But the Constitution can only be changed in strict accordance with constitutional rules (none of which involves statistical studies).

Now that was awesome 

The original intent of the 2nd amendment is to make sure the people have the appropriate tools at hand that, if needed, they can rise up and overthrow a corrupt or too-powerful government.

 

I would say that the Constitution was formed with a need, a direction and a goal in mind. It was the perceived threats and needed benefits to society as a whole that formed the basis of our Constitution. This was partly done with statistical or evaluation of what would be the needs for society to continue. So we cannot say statistics as a whole is not needed.

Only that on current Constitutional stated values they have no consequence.

But that society as a whole seeing a need could at some point add or subtract from our constitution and that would be weigh on the frequency of events and the perceived need.   

[northernvalk]

If I may postulate a bit, IMHO the fundamental problem is a difference of what we see the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Many on the left seem to incorrectly believe it was to preserve the right of simple arms for sporting, hunting, and basic home defense.

Whereas the original intent was not those things. Those things were so self-evident to the architects of this great nation they wouldn't have given a second thought to guaranteeing the right to the tools to accomplish those things.

The original intent of the 2nd amendment is to make sure the people have the appropriate tools at hand that, if needed, they can rise up and overthrow a corrupt or too-powerful government.

So, as long as we see the entire purpose of the 2nd so diametrically differently, we'll never come to an agreement on "what to do" about the so called problem.

I disagree. I think just as many on the left understand the reason for the 2nd Amendment as do on the right. Now there may be more on the left that don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, but that's different.

I'm trying to not put words in your mouth; you agree that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was for the people to have weapons of war in their possession to be able to rise up and overthrow the government if needed, right?

You just think that's no longer needed or something?

Serk, dispite the red dawn narative, common sense would tell any inteligent person that there is no small arms weapon that could pose a risk to modern military weaponry. Unless you plan on having a militia fighter jets, tanks and attack choppers, the second ammendment isnt going to help much.....

[Serk]

Jess - I agree... I hope it doesn't come to that, but I agree...

[Serk]

Serk, dispite the red dawn narative, common sense would tell any inteligent person that there is no small arms weapon that could pose a risk to modern military weaponry. Unless you plan on having a militia fighter jets, tanks and attack choppers, the second ammendment isnt going to help much.....

There's a bunch of Vietnamese rice farmers and Afghanistan poppy farmers that would argue that point.

[The emperor has no clothes]

If I may postulate a bit, IMHO the fundamental problem is a difference of what we see the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Many on the left seem to incorrectly believe it was to preserve the right of simple arms for sporting, hunting, and basic home defense.

Whereas the original intent was not those things. Those things were so self-evident to the architects of this great nation they wouldn't have given a second thought to guaranteeing the right to the tools to accomplish those things.

The original intent of the 2nd amendment is to make sure the people have the appropriate tools at hand that, if needed, they can rise up and overthrow a corrupt or too-powerful government.

So, as long as we see the entire purpose of the 2nd so diametrically differently, we'll never come to an agreement on "what to do" about the so called problem.

I disagree. I think just as many on the left understand the reason for the 2nd Amendment as do on the right. Now there may be more on the left that don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, but that's different.

I'm trying to not put words in your mouth; you agree that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was for the people to have weapons of war in their possession to be able to rise up and overthrow the government if needed, right?

You just think that's no longer needed or something?

I think the 2nd was intended as a way for the people to dissuade or fight tyranny. I wouldn't agree with your assessment of "weapons of war". In my opinion the "right to bear arms" was meant as rifles and pistols. But I understand the Supreme Court are the ones to decipher that phrase. I think it's still needed. But I seem to differ from many here on what the limits are.

[Robert]

I doubt very seriously many in the armed forces would shoot their own people and not honor their constitutional mandate to uphold the Constitution. So people coupled with these forces would be enough.


I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic relates to the Air Force core value “service before self”; the Navy and Marine Corps core value “courage”; and the Army’s “selfless service, personal courage and loyalty.”

This I personally believe is the one major reason we have seen the corruption in the offices of government to enslave people by laws and monetary bondage rather than outright stating the US is gone and you are under our control.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I doubt very seriously to many in the armed forces would shoot their own people and not honor their constitutional mandate to uphold the Constitution. So people coupled with these forces would be enough.

I seriously doubt ANY in the Armed Forces would do that.

[Jess from VA]

Serk, dispite the red dawn narative, common sense would tell any inteligent person that there is no small arms weapon that could pose a risk to modern military weaponry. Unless you plan on having a militia fighter jets, tanks and attack choppers, the second ammendment isnt going to help much.....

NorthernValk, I like all your posts, but you are dead wrong on this, for a variety of reasons.

Our armed law abiding citizenry in the 100 millions outnumbers our military and police by a huge margin.  And we would not fight in any conventional sense, but more in a guerilla manner.  There would never be any front lines, and the G would be hard pressed to use tanks, APCs, artillery or Apache helicopters, let alone bombers or fighter aircraft. And we would specifically avoid engaging any military or police who were not engaging us (and that would be made loud and clear from the outset).  It would be small group meeting engagements (mostly of our choosing).  And we would target all political/judicial/money leadership who advocated going to war on us individually (at their homes and workplaces), and from all directions.

And lets just say the word went out to arm up (just with rifles) and move on DC, and 2 million showed up.  

And it is very doubtful that the military (as a whole) would go to war on us.  And while some police would, many would not.

There is a great deal more discussion to have on this issue, but I'm not going to write more.

Other than to say that a G that elected to go to war with us, would lose it's taste for it very quickly, and after a few short weeks would be looking for a way out short of genocide on it's own people.    

    

[northernvalk]

I agree that the goverment wouldnt use conventional style "attack" knowing the resistance. So imho it would be go big, really big, to set the tone, where small arms are useless OR the government will never do this, as you say, so its not needed. I find the latter to be the 99.9999...% likely hood, but in either case, the 2nd wont matter because you are either dead or you have a significant mililtary force with you as you say.  Its a nice right to have for personal reasons but doens't really prevent the inly real threat the government would pose.

[RP#62]

Yup, going after guns will fix everything.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5251268/london-stabbing-knife-crime-statistics-violence-deaths-latest/

-RP

[Robert]

I saw photographs of UN/NATO/PfP troop checkpoints established to detect all resisters, gun owners, and others who somehow posed a threat to their UN agenda. Articles were written telling of how vehicles with loudspeakers blaring the message, "Surrender your weapons...you cannot possibly succeed in fighting us...." traveled throughout the communities there.

When I was researching in Germany in 2001, I read in the US military publication "Stars and Stripes" that for the first time in America, there were more FOREIGN TROOPS on American soil, than US TROOPS. And this was back in 2001! Isn't it strange how the mainstream news media never reveals this kind of information to the unsuspecting American people???

Americas worst nightmare potentially just got the green light. The blue helmets of the UN are coming to police the streets of the USA. Foreign Military is now allowed to police the streets, arrest, and use force in combat.

This all was to be the Obama legacy but now, what a great shot. 

Trump

[Gavin_Sons]

Guys, smart ass comments are not providing ANY solution to the actual problem...What is causing people to commit mass murder? We know its not a gun fault but at the end of the day ita still a problem being blamed on guns! Seriously, why are there so many mass murders compared to a country like ours with guns, dense urban areas and underfunded public educatiom? We even have the same entertainment, sports, general culture etc. You want to keep your current gun rights, solve the real problem, SOON!

Have you considered population? Your whole country has the population of what? California? Spread over a land mass the size of the US? Hmmmm, of course we will have more murders.

Gavin, please dont sound so ignorant to world geography. Our cities have similar population density to yours, the vast majority of our citizens live in urban areas. Per capita murder rates take that out of consideration. You have a problem and guns are not the cause of that problem. If you value your gun rights AND the lives of your innocent citizens, you need to get some brain power into this fight to make progress against the underlying issues.

I really don't care about Canada. Maybe you should help solve your problems instead of worrying about ours. And no I don't care that our problem is causing your country problems. Guess you need to elect someone that will fix said problems.

[Psychotic Bovine]

Seeing as it's IL/Shitcago, aren't all ARs (and other firearms) already registered, licensed, FOID carded?

And BTW, there is already federal case law for the proposition that possessors of illegal things cannot be required by law to self identify (for taxation or other reasons), because it violates compulsory self incrimination IAW 5th Amendment.    

NRA/GOA/etc files for Federal court temporary restraining order (TRO) until full hearing on the legality of said ordinance IAW 2d Amend, US Constitution.

In the meantime (with no TRO), a fine is levied.  No payment is made.  The state seeks to enforce the fine.  The G bears the burden of proving the firearm is unlawfully possessed inside the village.  How do they do that?  The guy charged remains silent and cannot be compelled to testify.  They going to kick doors?  An AR on a preexisting G list to a known address would be PC for a warrant to kick doors.  If he notifies them his AR has been moved out of the village (IAW the ordinance), they have no more PC for a warrant.

Instead, how about making it unlawful to use firearms in a criminal manner?   Wait..... I think they probably already did that.

I'm thinking that there will be many people reporting that they were the victim of a tragic boating accident.

Mine were also lost in a tragic accident, only while riding in the Goodyear blimp.  Was forced to toss all of my firearms out due to losing altitude.  Over Canada.

[Serk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0