“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

a reply to: Sunwolf

Nitpicker... Just saying.

Get back into search and study shotguns again.Each shotshell(or bullet as you call it) sends out 9 to 200 pellets depending on the choice of shot size.So your analogy is not correct.

They must have made a typo in my 2010 Wikipedia. In the 2010 Wikipedia, the Remington 870 was a rifle, not a shotgun.
You know what I mean about the analogy.

Whatever happened to the MK47 and the automated gun?

A member corrected me that it wasn't MK-47, but AK-47 (my dad, who was a captain in the cadet school, got mixed-up the A with the M); as for the automatic gun, the AK-47 is a selective mode, meaning you can set it to a semi-automatic action, or an automatic action. Unless 2010 Wikipedia is wrong on that part too... *sarcastic*

originally posted by: swanne

When the Second Amendment was drafted almost three centuries ago, guns were at the stage of revolvers and muskets. Limited quantity of bullets, and often slow to re-charge - basically, you had to think twice before shooting someone. Today one automatic gun can turn a peaceful school yard into a horror crime scene. Hundred of children were killed - why? Because someone went crazy with an automatic, most of which fire more than one bullet per seconds. That's more than one can do with a three-hundred years-old musket, I can tell you that.

Actually a machine-gun (under the current definition) was demonstrated to Congress nearly a decade before the Second Amendment was ratified. Such technology and capabilities were entirely within their knowledge and expectations.

The point of the 2A is that a government can't be kept honest when it has total power. The only way for the public to keep control was to have the capability to act against the government if necessary. Sometimes it is not about using the capability, but simply having it.

Your point that the current military has equipment far beyond civilian access is entirely valid. However, the legal system seeks to prevent the use of the military against "the people". If a government gets to a stage where it is doing this, surely that is indicative that perhaps the Founding Fathers were correct? Perhaps the people need to be kept on an equal footing to the standing Army.

The issue isn't that people will be given machine-guns and will use them to attack the government, the issue is that people should not be denied the right to be prepared for a time when it might become necessary.

I'm fairly certain that plenty of people have said "such a thing could never happen, we're a civilised society now"... much as they would have said it in the 1700's... the 1800's... the 1900's...

Also, your country was built by people who were willing to pick up a gun and face down what was regarded as a superior opponent - the British Army was highly trained, disciplined and experienced, equipped with some of the best weaponry of their age. A bunch of hick farmers who chose to stood their ground still managed to overcome them - and decided never to let that imbalance occur again. Why are you so quick to throw away something that they willingly paid for with their own blood?

a reply to: starheart

But the 870 is a shotgun. One trigger pull can kill one to five kids depending on distance and proximity. Also takes less than a second to put another shell in the magazine tube of an 870. Also wondering why you compared a rifle to a shotgun. That's apples and oranges

a reply to: EvillerBob

Because she's not American. She's Canadian. Big difference. Also not her problem. She must not have enough worries in her own life

originally posted by: riffraff
But the 870 is a shotgun. One trigger pull can kill one to five kids depending on distance and proximity. Also takes less than a second to put another shell in the magazine of an 870. Also wondering why you compared a rifle to a shotgun. That's apples and oranges

You are replying to a poster who relies on Wikipedia and their daddy for information on firearms so the knowledge expectation level needs to be scaled down significantly.

originally posted by: starheart
a reply to:

They must have made a typo in my 2010 Wikipedia. In the 2010 Wikipedia, the Remington 870 was a rifle, not a shotgun.

No... They didn't.You were just talking about things you have no experience with. The 870 has been a shotgun for over 60 years. At no time ever was it a rifle.
The wiki page on the Ford mustang never had it listed as an 18 wheeler big rig
And the wiki page on the 870 never had it listed as a rifle.

As for your magazine capacity beef, it takes 3/4 of a second to change out magazines in a rifle. Do you really care if a mass murderer has a 20 round mag or 4 5 round mags?
You are literally talking about less than four seconds

a reply to: riffraff

yessir, i can change a magazine really fast.

and if their daddy confused the A and the M on his weapon platforms, he's obviously not had much trigger time.

Never mind. You are all nitpicking, which means you've ran out of things to counter at my post. You know all very well that I was talking about a rifle with manual recharge (no magazine, you have to put one bullet at a time), but you've chose to concentrate on the one mistake you could find. It doesn't take an IQ of 150 to understand that I was speaking about rifles, even if I got the wrong model; it takes idiots.

You have also conveniently breezed over the damage an AK-47 would do, and how much less damage bows and crossbows would do. As I've said: concentrate on the violent means of solving violence, but breeze over the non-violent (or minimally violent) means of solving violence. Thank you for showing me your true personality and nature.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: starheart

Rule number 1: if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't be talking about it.

I don't care if an AK-47 could fire ten thousand rounds per second, if they all miss, the damage is 0.
single shot weapons including archery, are far MORE deadly than any "assault rifle" simply because the people using them have more firing discipline meaning they tend to be much more accurate

originally posted by: starheart

You have also conveniently breezed over the damage an AK-47 would do

We didn't conveniently breeze over anything. We have been trying to tell you that the AK is just a rifle. Nothing more nothing less. It doesn't do any more damage than any other rifle.
Ever seen the show swamp people? They kill 13 foot alligators with 22's!
As I've said before, if you're problem is magazine capacity, it takes less than a second to change mags. If you were at the scene of a mass murder you would not know when the killer stopped to change mags. It happens that fast. I don't know why you're fixated on the AK. You could take a 7 mag, 308, AR-15,30 ought 6, or any other rifle(tactical or hunting) and commit mass murder if your mind is set on doing that.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Silicis n Volvo

When you disarm the people you do not disarm the criminals.

Yes you do, it just takes a hell of a long time when the country is already flooded with guns, i agree though that you can't completely remove it.

Letitia Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis might disagree with that. They were killed with a particular type of firearm that was made illegal in the UK decades before it was even invented...

originally posted by: swanne

I am not talking about those small pistols. I am talking about those ATSers who think that the Second Amendment applies to heavy machine guns, bazookas and tanks.

So what was the 18th Century equivalent of a tank or a bazooka? A cannon? A horse-drawn cannon is probably the closest they got to a "tank" in the sense of an 18thC equivalent of large mobile artillery.

Should these be covered by the Second Amendment? Well, if the 2A was effectively to prevent a future government from trying to disarm them just as the British had tried to do... then yes. One of the main objectives of the push for gun control by the British was to capture or destroy a number of cannons known to be in colonial possession. The Battles of Lexington and Concord started over the British searching for cannons.

originally posted by: starheart
a reply to: Sunwolf

Nitpicker... Just saying.

Get back into search and study shotguns again.Each shotshell(or bullet as you call it) sends out 9 to 200 pellets depending on the choice of shot size.So your analogy is not correct.

They must have made a typo in my 2010 Wikipedia. In the 2010 Wikipedia, the Remington 870 was a rifle, not a shotgun.
You know what I mean about the analogy.

Whatever happened to the MK47 and the automated gun?

A member corrected me that it wasn't MK-47, but AK-47 (my dad, who was a captain in the cadet school, got mixed-up the A with the M); as for the automatic gun, the AK-47 is a selective mode, meaning you can set it to a semi-automatic action, or an automatic action. Unless 2010 Wikipedia is wrong on that part too... *sarcastic*

Ak`s sold in this country are semi-auto only and you DO have to load the magazines 1 round at a time they do Not come pre-loaded from the factory.
An 870 or a Mossberg 500 would be the choice of many proficient shooters inside a building.

originally posted by: EvillerBob
The Battles of Lexington and Concord started over the British searching for cannons.

And the British retreat from Boston was because of howitzers and mortars seized by the Militia at Fort Ticonderoga.

originally posted by: riffraff
"When the Second Amendment was drafted almost three centuries ago, guns were at the stage of revolvers and muskets. Limited quantity of bullets, and often slow to re-charge - basically, you had to think twice before shooting someone. Today one automatic gun can turn a peaceful school yard into a horror crime scene. Hundred of children were killed - why? Because someone went crazy with an automatic, most of which fire more than one bullet per seconds. That's more than one can do with a three-hundred years-old musket, I can tell you that."

They wrote the 2nd to ensure civilians were a credible threat should their own government turn into a authoritarian repressive regime. therefore they did intend for thier citizens to have state of the art small arms. this is even in the existing record of their debates on the second therefore you are wrong. furthermore i bet you have read this before and even seen cites of their own words to this effect. but i bet you just don't care why they did it. i bet you will blink, maybe pause a bit, and repeat your absurd argument as if nothing happened. that's ok. your credibility isn't my concern. It should be yours. but just don't think you will fool anyone.

originally posted by: starheart
Never mind. You are all nitpicking, which means you've ran out of things to counter at my post. You know all very well that I was talking about a rifle with manual recharge (no magazine, you have to put one bullet at a time), but you've chose to concentrate on the one mistake you could find. It doesn't take an IQ of 150 to understand that I was speaking about rifles, even if I got the wrong model; it takes idiots.

You have also conveniently breezed over the damage an AK-47 would do, and how much less damage bows and crossbows would do. As I've said: concentrate on the violent means of solving violence, but breeze over the non-violent (or minimally violent) means of solving violence. Thank you for showing me your true personality and nature.

Have a nice day.

1 mistake we could find?870 is a rifle?Automated gun?MK-47?Magazines for an AK come loaded out of the box?Geez,you need to further study and rethink future posting on something you absolutely know nothing about.

My thing of the whole argument is, and I've said this even in elementary school when we went over the constitution and didn't understand much, but even then my response was "criminals don't follow the law" so even making them illegal to have, doesn't mean people wont have them. The idea is to have more good, than evil to protect the innocent. If you have 10 "heavy armed" people, and or 2 "heavy armed people" chances are the outnumbered "evil" will not prevail and take out entire buildings. If you have 1 heavy armed evil person, and no armed good people, chances are the evil dude will take out a whole lot more than if there were more armed people. I believe in even playing field so all automatics, may as well go ball deep in this lol.

here are a few cites of the founders and contemporaries about the 2nd and similar articles in their own state constitutions:

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster
"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

there are hundreds more. funny... how is it there are all of these pro gun cites and your side can provide none where the founders felt we should be dismarmed. or where they thought our guns should be inferior to the governments. why is that? oh... I know... How about: Because none of them felt the way you do about arms. how about that?

OP, if you think the government of the United States isn't a shockingly tyrannical government - that is your business. Please stop trying to convince other people of this lie.

Back in that time, those guns were high end guns. If they wanted us unarmed, they would have said for us to use swords. :-/. I'm sure other countries around the world at that time were forbidden from using guns!