re: Shooting at Orlando gay club: 50 Dead, 53 Injured, Shooter is Radical Muslim

quote:

---

sure the government gets more power over our lives if we remove our freedoms. that's not a novel argument

---

Wasn't trying to be "novel," simply pointing out that the Second Amendment, as worded, is open to widely swinging interpretations.

quote:

---

the whole point of having these rights protected is to prevent emotional thinking from leading to drastic measures like you're suggesting 

---

O sure. I agree. There's a reason it is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution and rightfully so. But again, I'm pointing out the different interpretations of the Amendment, not advocating that's how it should be read. Although, again, I will say that many of the arguments made by what has been called on here the "pro-gun" folks (I used it once by appropriation, I believe) are disingenuous. The real argument is that, as with entitlements, people like what they've got and don't want it taken away, including guns. How often have guns been used by anyone on this board for anything other than hunting and for what reason do you need things like a handgun or "assault" rifle to hunt a deer or a pheasant?

I'm just asking. For that matter, why do you need an assault rifle at all? It's horribly unwieldy in home defense. I guess if the zombies are coming or the Russians attack we could use them.

ETA: I'm glad people are actually talking about this stuff now and not just slamming the "left" or the "right". Actually some intelligent back and forth going on.

quote:

---

I'm just asking. For that matter, why do you need an assault rifle at all?

---

I don't have an assault rifle. I have an AR15. I do not have an M4A1. My AR15 is used for plinking, predator hunting, hog hunting, deer hunting, all around general fun and exercising freedom. I am not a crazy person so my AR15 has never killed anyone.

A tangent point, do you not believe that an armed populace is the best defense against tyranny?

quote:

---

Russians attack we could use them.

---

Youre joking, but do you know why Russia never will invade this country? Because we have an armed populace and it would be nearly impossible.

You want to control gun violence, start disincentiving the lower class in this country to continue to reproduce at such an alarming rate due to financial gain. Focus on educating the lower class and showing them there is a different path in life that can be taken. Start holding people accountable for their actions. You don't work and pay taxes, you don't get to vote. End the failed war on drugs and legalize everything. Lock up only the real violent criminals and make it a lot more difficult for them to be released. Close our borders to these fricking assholes that come over and rage war on us.

That would be a good start. Or, we can continue with the narrative that guns are to blame and punish the 99% of law abiding middle class gun owners that enjoy exercising one of the very last freedoms we have in this country. This country is and always will be a gun culture. That will never change, and if it every is forced to change, then you better get ready for another civil war. It will not be a peaceful exchange like the Australia/Europe examples you provided.

quote:

---

How often have guns been used by anyone on this board for anything other than hunting and for what reason do you need things like a handgun or "assault" rifle to hunt a deer or a pheasant?

---

I've used them to deter poachers breaking the law at my hunting club. I've used them while serving with the Sheriff's Dept. My mother in law used one to force 2 meth heads off her property when they were trying to gain entry..

quote:

---

Wasn't trying to be "novel," simply pointing out that the Second Amendment, as worded, is open to widely swinging interpretations.

---

No it isn't. There were two prevailing theories; the individual rights interpretation and the collective rights interpretations (plural because there were two distinct legal theories there "original" and the "sophisticated"). The 2008 v Heller case settled that, all nine SCOTUS justices held that the individual right interpretation is the correct reading (5-4 is the split of the scope of that interpretation). There is no longer any rational reason to think there is an interpretation that makes the 2nd Amendment only apply to those serving in militias.

quote:

---

How often have guns been used by anyone on this board for anything other than hunting and for what reason do you need things like a handgun or "assault" rifle to hunt a deer or a pheasant?

---

That means absolutely nothing as far as the right protected by the 2nd Amendment. It has nothing to do with hunting and there is nothing requiring anyone to justify why they can buy one type of weapon or another within that scope. The AR15, like all semi-auto weapons, are now protected as a class through the "in common use" measure established in v Heller and reinforced unanimously by the Supreme Court in Caetano v Massachusetts just recently.

quote:

---

No it isn't. There were two prevailing theories; the individual rights interpretation and the collective rights interpretations (plural because there were two distinct legal theories there "original" and the "sophisticated"). The 2008 v Heller case settled that, all nine SCOTUS justices held that the individual right interpretation is the correct reading (5-4 is the split of the scope of that interpretation). There is no longer any rational reason to think there is an interpretation that makes the 2nd Amendment only apply to those serving in militias.

---

I haven't read that case or the opinion, but I imagine that there is a rational reason to think there is an interpretation that the 2nd Amendment applies only to militias since 4 of 9 Supreme Court Justices appear to have dissented from the decision to the contrary. That seems like the very definition of "rational reason."

I would honestly love to have a gun and never have to use it, as opposed to not having one and needing it.

I realize now that this thread has disintegrated into a gun debate, so I will bow out for now. Good discussion, though, all the same.

I imagine most of you think me a raging liberal. Perhaps I am in comparison to some of you. I am far from it on other issues and I certainly concede many of your points, which were well thought out.

I think we can all agree that a healthy debate on the issue is deserved and that the continued tragedies and attacks perpetrated against Americans are infuriating.

quote:

---

How often have guns been used by anyone on this board for anything other than hunting

---

I enjoy shooting just to shoot. I have plenty of space with no one close enough to notice so I can walk out the back door, put up a target, and shoot. Some people just enjoy stuff like that.

FTR not a day goes by where I live that I don't hear gunshots... and it's not people killing each other. In rural areas people like shooting guns without committing a crime in the process.

quote:

---

for what reason do you need things like a handgun or "assault" rifle to hunt a deer or a pheasant?

---

Handguns aren't really used for hunting but they are used as a secondary weapon for protection. In places like Alaska they carry hand cannons to protect themselves from bears. Around here people carry them for protection against hogs and poachers.

As for "assault" rifles, the AR platform has become a preferred weapon for keeping the wild hog population in check. They take over farming and hunting land and tear everything up. If you use a single shot rifle then the most you'll get is 1 before they scatter. With an AR you can keep putting bullets down range.

Feds confirm the wife knew everything about the plot ahead of time and did nothing to stop it


He even called her from Pulse during the attack. She will be arrested.