Serious Question: Would you be willing to give up semi-automatic guns?

a reply to: stinkelbaum

Wrong ,puerile and pedantic.

a reply to: jupiter869

Of course i would i'm not a coward ,lol

a reply to: jupiter869

No,and I only wish I had been there with one.
It would have been over quick...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Indeed.

Wouldn't be my first time in a gay bar either lol.

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: rigel4

I could build a chemical bomb with the contents of my cleaning cupboard and my tool drawer, that could kill dozens, maul hundreds, and cause huge property damage.

Should we ban cleaning chemicals?

..but its the easy availabilily of these weapons thats the problem..

How many average people could build a bomb and carry out the attach without being identified at some stage of the proceedings.

Much easier to go buy a AR-15 don't you think.. no ones looking because it is legal.

How about a few 5 gallon cans of gasoline after chaining the exit doors shut? No need for expensive firearms and ammunition at all to massacre people.

originally posted by: pteridine

How about a few 5 gallon cans of gasoline after chaining the exit doors shut? No need for expensive firearms and ammunition at all to massacre people.

Yeah, but could one guy chain every door of a nightclub closed, place multiple gallons of gas correctly and detonate them all without getting caught as easily as he could get an automatic rifle into that same nightclub and shoot a bunch of people???

Probably not.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: pteridine

How about a few 5 gallon cans of gasoline after chaining the exit doors shut? No need for expensive firearms and ammunition at all to massacre people.

Yeah, but could one guy chain every door of a nightclub closed, place multiple gallons of gas correctly and detonate them all without getting caught as easily as he could get an automatic rifle into that same nightclub and shoot a bunch of people???

Probably not.

A lot of experienced shooters have trouble understanding how one guy could do what he did using an 'automatic' rifle.
The 320 people had trouble getting out of the doors as it was, but they would have to be chained shut for gasoline to be used?
No chains would be needed. Pour a few gallons at each exit and light it.... all the little sheep inside would have ended up in a pile in the center of the building dead from smoke inhalation.... furiously pounding the screens of their cell phones, wondering when the fire department would be there.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: pteridine

How about a few 5 gallon cans of gasoline after chaining the exit doors shut? No need for expensive firearms and ammunition at all to massacre people.

Yeah, but could one guy chain every door of a nightclub closed, place multiple gallons of gas correctly and detonate them all without getting caught as easily as he could get an automatic rifle into that same nightclub and shoot a bunch of people???

Probably not.

As Butcherguy said, a fire at each exit might suffice. Once the structure and contents lit up people would run in circles waiting for rescue. Pyrolysis of plastics would add to their confusion by poisoning and anesthesia. It wouldn't take long. en.wikipedia.org... [and references within]

As a Brit looking in I like how clear and simple the constitution and amendments of the US makes things for every citizen - everyones rights are protected (in theory).

I can understand why you would fight to protect them.

I do however find the text of the second amendment a fun one:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I just wanted to better understand 3 parts of the amendment:

1. "...well regulated..."
   
2. "...militia..."
   
3. "...necessary..."
   

Firstly lets start with 'Militia'.

As per the dictionary this is either:

1) "A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency"

- When was the last time a military force was raised from the civilian population to supplement the regular army in an emergency? In all instances of previous mass shootings (or emergencies for arguments sake) the regular law enforcement has dealt with it - not the army (correct me if I'm wrong here).

2) "A military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army."

- Clearly this is not applicable to modern day America - however I can understand back in 1700's a militia engaging with an occupying 'regular' British army.

3) "(In the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service."

- I'm assuming this is the definition that most Americans would use to define as their Militia when exercising their right to bear arms.

Lets look at 'Well Regulated'

Are said Militia's as per the 3rd definition above well regulated? Here we can look at a few things - regulation surrounding gun purchasing, gun ownership or one's conduct as part of 'a militia' whilst in possession of a gun.

I personally have very little knowledge about either of them however I feel the regulation of people acting within 'a militia' is probably not as stringent as lets say - banking regulation, abortion regulation, probation regulation etc etc.

Necessary

Are said 'militias' as per the second amendment necessary? As I mentioned earlier - all mass shootings are dealt with by law enforcement and not the army so unless the Russian or Chinese 'regular' armies invade there is no real reason to class a militia as necessary.

Anyhoo...

As I said I like the constitution and amendments - although i do think they are a bit dated in their interpretations.

For the sake of being a bit of a troll why don't we say that a 17th century law requires one to bear arms from the 17th century....i wonder what the rate of fire on one of those is

a reply to: Loque76

'Militia' in US law refers to the civilian populace suitable to military service and has always been geared towards conscription. It includes two classes, organized (the National Guard) and the unorganized, which is essentially everyone else of draft age. This definition has a history in the 'Militia Act', which was first drafted all the way back in 1792, shortly after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment (there have been many versions since, but all serve essentially the same purpose). Notably, that first Militia Act also indicated that the citizenry were to provide their own weapons and ammunition if called to service.

As far as the 2nd amendment is concerned, yes, one can argue that its outdated. Still, it should not be open to interpretation. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow the citizenry of the United States to form armed militias and act as a last line of defense for the country in times of crisis. If 2A is outdated, the correct procedure would be to pass another amendment that either changes or repeals it. But this stuff of 'interpretation' is nonsense. It was put there for a reason and as long as it remains in existence it should serve the originally intended purpose. That is not possible with obsolete weaponry.

a reply to: jupiter869

Serious question , why do you need semi-automatic guns?
Why don't shooting clubs hold the weapons for people to shoot at the range ?

originally posted by: gortex
Serious question , why do you need semi-automatic guns?
Why don't shooting clubs hold the weapons for people to shoot at the range ?

Speaking for myself, I don't think need enters into the equation. If a person can lawfully own a firearm and pass the background check, I think they should generally be able to own anything they want. By the same token, if I don't trust a person with a semi-automatic firearm, I don't trust them with any firearm, period.

As for gun ranges storing firearms, there are two problems with that. The first is that you're going to have to build an awful lot of public gun ranges that don't currently exist, especially in the rural US, where the 'gun range' tends to be a convenient, empty stretch of land owned by family or friends. At a rate of one per county, the number would be in the thousands. You're also going to have to pay for round-the-clock security for all of those ranges to keep the stored firearms from being stolen. Then there's the maintenance requirements for them all. The price tag for all of this is going to get ridiculously expensive. The second is that you'd have an extremely difficult argument to make in order to get the gun owners to accept it. Its almost a certainty that non-compliance would be very, very high.

a reply to: butcherguy

Even that wouldn't be very easy. You'd have to run around the building pouring the gas out at each location without anyone noticing you. Plus buildings happen to have fire extinguishers and sprinklers and things as well.

You'd be better off tossing some cocktails into a crowd most likely. But my point wasn't that it couldn't be done that way, but guns just make it really easy.

Especially in that kind of crowd where you don't have to even be a great shot. Just aim for the cluster and be able to handle the rifle to some degree.

originally posted by: jupiter869 Serious Question: Would you be willing to give up semi-automatic guns?

No.

Moving on...

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: butcherguy

Even that wouldn't be very easy. You'd have to run around the building pouring the gas out at each location without anyone noticing you. Plus buildings happen to have fire extinguishers and sprinklers and things as well.

You'd be better off tossing some cocktails into a crowd most likely. But my point wasn't that it couldn't be done that way, but guns just make it really easy.

Especially in that kind of crowd where you don't have to even be a great shot. Just aim for the cluster and be able to handle the rifle to some degree.

Any time a specific group gets together in one place, e.g., a club, parade, or public event, bombs and fires become a weapon of choice. Maybe guns make it easy, but guns are personal and require that no one present shoots back, spoiling a good massacre by wasting the perpetrator. With a fire, you don't have to shoot at all. It's a light-and-run scenario. The chances of escape [to burn another den of iniquity displeasing to Mohammed] are much higher than a shootout. Failure one day at one location does not preclude success another day at another location.
Of course, someone with a suicide mindset may want to go out in a blaze of glory to show the world that he was important and maybe not a closet homosexual who was conflicted by his feelings for other men and the tenets of his erstwhile religion.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: jupiter869

Serious question , why do you need semi-automatic guns?
Why don't shooting clubs hold the weapons for people to shoot at the range ?

Feral hogs don't tend to come to the 'club' to be shot.

a reply to: Loque76

Then freedom of speech cannot apply to any electronic medium, including the internet, phones, movies, TV, even telegraph...

My only problem, and I was thinking about this today.

Sure we'd be generally safer from mass shootings if we gave up our rifles. A rifle is not the best self defense weapon for crime, because it's unwieldy to carry around therefore a hand gun is better, and for home self defense a shot gun is better.

For confirmation of that, cops generally have hand guns first, shotguns second (They are right there in the car) and then rifles for later when the situation is more serious.

So why do we even need rifles? The 2nd amendment is for us to protect ourselves from the government. In that case we do need rifles. That's why we need them.

a reply to: pteridine

Why haven't there been a rash of mass-casualty burnings over the last 25 years, but many with firearms in USA, and many with explosives in middle-eastern warzones where explosives are easy to purchase and there is local knowledge?

a reply to: Loque76

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

This is not a complete sentence. It is a declaration (militia is defined as the whole body of the citizenry) that citizen militias are necessary to the security of a state, that's it. That's the only meaning in that.


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This completes the sentence and it is what gives meaning to the second amendment. The militia is the people. The whole point of the militia was to be able to respond to government tyranny. People act like this function is outdated, as if the western world is free of corruption and tyranny. It isn't.

The people ARE the militia. I'm not just saying this either, this is the definition of militia.