[poochee]

A place discuss opinions on gun control starting out with a VIDEO by Bill Moyers.

Bill Moyers: NRA 'Enabler Of Death' (VIDEO)
Posted: 07/23/2012 1:35 pm Updated: 07/24/2012 1:30 am

I concur with Moyers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1695658.html

[buffoon]

This one will undoubtedly go to debate rather sooner than later, so I've marked it accordingly from the getgo

[Blackmirror]

Good luck

[buffoon]

I have an "outsider's" view on it and am obviously influenced but also biased in stance by experience in my various countries of residence, including the present one.

Also I am ignorant of the percentage of NRA members that actually support, more or less rabidly, the ideology of an America having to be armed to the last man and woman and right up to the teeth.

But to pick one belief from the other thread and valuing it from a practical standpoint, the idea that every citizen being armed would have precluded or at least lessened the Aurora catastrophe or any prior one for that matter, appears to me highly ludicrous.

It's already been voiced that the bloodbath would probably have been even greater and I agree.

There are penty of instances, there, here and everywhere, of even trained personnel (those that CAN shoot, can discern WHOM to shoot and whom NOT to shoot and can TELL the DIFFERENCE even under situation related stress) getting it wrong.

Having a bunch of amateurs celebrating a John Wayne day is an image that makes me shudder.

[Wino]

I fear most members of the NRA more than Islamic Terrorist.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by Wino

I fear most members of the NRA more than Islamic Terrorist.

From some of the stuff one gets to read alone here, that seems a sound evaluation. Seeing as how chances of meeting the former are much higher.

[Wino]

Latest rumor floating around the bat guano crazies is that the Aurora massacre was set up by the Obama administration to get new gun laws in place. Most every time I read some of this NRA crazy stuff I feel like I'm reading journals written by 12 year olds with an anal complex. I don't know whether to laugh, cry or puke.

[buffoon]

................and it would appear that it's not "simply" about the right to own a firearm, it has to be as big and powerful as what the government issues to its armed forces. Like they're the ones one may at some time be up against.

I've heard of the equal opportunity concept but this is getting to be ridiculous.

What next, the right to one's own AA-battery on the family house roof?

[poochee]

Originally Posted by buffoon

This one will undoubtedly go to debate rather sooner than later, so I've marked it accordingly from the getgo

Okee, Dokee.

[poochee]

When the Second Amendment was written those folks had no perception of the weapons we would have available today!

If they did, I wonder if they would not have addressed the right to bear arms differently? More control.

[buffoon]

I also vaguely recall that the right to bear arms was somewhat linked to a militia. Understandably so since the forming and maintenance of same was an integral and necessary part of defence of the states. When a standing army, such as the erstwhile colonizing power maintained, was not financially viable.

How today's freedom to carry has been divorced from these historical necessities is interesting. Since the original goals surely did not involve the concept of the militia warring upon itself. Something that since seems to have been adopted as the main reason for citizens being armed.

Unless, of course, one designs a scenario where, the US military being far too over-extended overseas, home protection is required to contain Canadians that want to maraud all the way to the Gulf and pillaging Mexicans that would otherwise head for the Lakes.

[poochee]

Originally Posted by buffoon

I also vaguely recall that the right to bear arms was somewhat linked to a militia. Understandably so since the forming and maintenance of same was an integral and necessary part of defence of the states. When a standing army, such as the erstwhile colonizing power maintained, was not financially viable.

Correct!

But we still have those that would like to form militias!

[poochee]

Kathleen Miles
SB 249, CA Sen. Leland Yee's Gun Control Bill, Seeks To Slow Bullet Reloading, Infuriates Gun Activists (VIDEO)
Posted: 08/07/2012 5:30 pm Updated: 08/07/2012 7:40 pm

A California state senator who introduced a bill to tighten the state's gun control has received a flood of racist calls and letters in response.

It figures!

It is currently illegal in California for manufacturers to sell certain guns with detachable magazines, or the storage areas that allow for repeat firing. To get around the law, manufacturers have been selling guns with tools, or conversion kits, that allow one to reload in seconds. Yee's bill seeks to ban such devices, including “bullet buttons” and "mag magnets."

The National Rifle Association calls the bill a "gun ban monster" on its website and encourages members to write California legislators expressing their opposition. "Thousands of owners could be arrested for inadvertent violations," the website reads. "If you own an affected firearm, your only choices would be to destroy it, surrender it to a law enforcement agency, sell it out of state or have it confiscated at the time of your arrest!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1752190.html

[ekim68]

Well you know when you go hunting those helpless targets they have to be nailed more than once, eh? True Hunters....

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by buffoon

I also vaguely recall that the right to bear arms was somewhat linked to a militia. Understandably so since the forming and maintenance of same was an integral and necessary part of defence of the states. When a standing army, such as the erstwhile colonizing power maintained, was not financially viable.

How today's freedom to carry has been divorced from these historical necessities is interesting. Since the original goals surely did not involve the concept of the militia warring upon itself. Something that since seems to have been adopted as the main reason for citizens being armed.

Unless, of course, one designs a scenario where, the US military being far too over-extended overseas, home protection is required to contain Canadians that want to maraud all the way to the Gulf and pillaging Mexicans that would otherwise head for the Lakes.

That was recently brought up elsewhere. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is a "prefatory" (something to do with "prefix" presumably) clause. "The question of a collective rights versus an individual right was progressively resolved" courtesy of court rulings upholding "the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right".

The bottom line is that nay-sayers are wasting their time with the stable door -- the horse already bolted.