Jump to content

Retired Marine's Comments on Guns


Parsad
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Texas sees my point regarding hand grenade and guns, versus bow and arrow and spears. 

 

“There’s also principle involved: In the United States of America, we have the Second Amendment right to bear arms — it doesn’t say ‘guns,’ it says ‘arms.’”

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/09/12/new-texas-law-expands-knife-freedoms/

Dirks and daggers, stilettos and poniards, even machetes and swords can now legally be carried just about anywhere — even “down Congress Avenue,” said state Rep. John Frullo, R-Lubbock, the author of House Bill 1935, the law that made it so beginning Sept. 1.  

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ERICOPOLY said:

We could take away all pistols, rifles, shotguns without violating the 2nd amendment.

Here is your spear and bow and arrow.  Now you are "bearing arms".

You could take away pistols, rifles, and shotguns and give everyone spears and end up with mass stabbings. Ignorant and shortsighted statement. 

A man in Norway killed 5 people with a Bow this past year. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/man-norway-bow-arrow-attack-pleads-guilty-murder-84801212

_________________

Vehicle deaths as results of speeding every year is around 10k. Why do we not put governors on vehicles to prevent them from going above 70? There is really no need to go fast right? Why does your Tesla need Ludicrous mode?

_________________

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/gun-facts-and-fiction/mass-shootings/

- 2nd Amendment is not a contract.. it's a negative right. "The right of the people". It is a rule for government not the people. 

- Bring back insane asylums (Kennedys waged war on them and instead of reforming them they defunded them)

- Every single Mass Shooter (excluding gangs) has been on some type of anti-depressant 

- Only insane people carry out mass shootings

- Domestic violence and criminal activity account for 88% of "Mass Shootings" 

- Prohibition doesn't work and has never worked

- Criminals don't follow laws so how does restricting law abiding citizens prevent the crazies from doing despicable things? 

- "Let the police handle it". The police were in the vicinity of every mass shooting and either failed to respond or were killed. 

- America has been armed to the teeth since the beginning yet mass shootings have only been a problem since the mid 90's. Common sense says guns aren't the problem. And before you mention the "assault weapons ban". That didn't do anything as millions of weapons were grandfathered in.  

- Roughly 2m people defend themselves with firearms every year in the US. FBI and FDA numbers

- Handguns are used significantly more. 

- Why not hand grenades? (well Tannerite exists on shelves today). In general there shouldn't be regulation on items which can be used discriminately to defend yourself. Saying someone should be able to own a hand grenade for self defense is a nonsensical argument. 

- Some argue for better background checks (see legal info) when they already check the majority of what people want them to check. The problem is the FBI does not enforce or follow up on failed background checks. In 2017 there was something like 200k failed checks and the FBI only followed up on something like 1k of them. 

- The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 2008)

- The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States. (Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 2016)

- The Second Amendment was incorporated against state and local governments, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 2010)

- An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." (Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 1886)

- Congress does not have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 1803)

- It is unconstitutional to require a precondition on the exercising of a right. (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939)

- It is unconstitutional to require a license (government permission) to exercise a right. (Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966)

- It is unconstitutional to delay the exercising of a right. (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971)

- It is unconstitutional to charge a fee for the exercising of a right. (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966)

- It is unconstitutional to register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right. (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968)

- If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 1963)

 

Some Legal Info

 

Under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution 
in a State proceeding is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if ATF E-Form 4473 (5300.9) Revised October 2016 the person has been 
granted relief by the adjudicating/committing State pursuant to a qualifying mental health relief from disabilities program. Also, a person who has
 been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution by a department or agency of Federal Government is not prohibited by 
the adjudication or commitment if either: (a) the person's adjudication or commitment was set-aside or expunged by the adjudicating/committing agency;
 (b) the person has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the agency; (c) the person was found 
by the agency to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication/ commitment; or (d)
 the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, 
board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) 
of title 18, United States Code; (e) the person was granted relief from the adjudicating/ committing agency pursuant to a qualified mental health
 relief from disabilities program. Persons who fall within one of the above exceptions should answer "no" to question 11.f. This exception to an 
adjudication or commitment by a Federal department or agency does not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity,
 or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

 

1911 Sullivan Act
1934 Natiional Firearms Act
1938 Federal Firearms Act
1939 United States v. Miller (ban on sawed off shotguns)
1967 CA mulford Act
1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
1968 Gun Control Act (Banned guns that have no "sporting purpose")(specifically bombs, grenades, mines, and machine guns)
1972 ATF Created
1976 Arms Export Control Act
1986 Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act 
1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (Prevent civilian ownership or transfer of machine guns and banned silencers and silencer parts)
1988 Undetectable Firearms Act
1989 CA Assault Weapon Ban
1990 Gun-Free School Zone Act
1993 Brady Handgun Violence Act (Established the Instant Criminal Background Check System) ****
1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (Assault weapon ban. Banned 19 "military style or "copy cat" 
assault weapons including AR-15's unless lawefully posessed based on Federal law)
1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act
2012 Obama Executive Order Criminal Background Checks
2013 NY Safety Act
2013 California Assault Weapon Ban (Banned Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines. 
Quote Summary: "There are 100mil HC Mags and this would be ineffective in keeping these out of the hands of criminals)
2013 Conneticut Children's Safety Act
2014 IL Assault Weapon Ban
2014 CO Magazine Ban/Universal Background Check
2014 Obama Executive Order Import Ban of Saiga/AK47Sporting Rifle
2019 Bump Stock ban

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Castanza said:

You could take away pistols, rifles, and shotguns and give everyone spears and end up with mass stabbings. Ignorant and shortsighted statement.

I actually agree with you.  Therefore it isn't ignorant.  Another example:  I could drive over pedestrians at a parade.

But my arguments are about the right to bear arms.  

Arms are weapons.  All you are pointing out is that weapons are dangerous and can kill people.  Well, duh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just like you could take away rocket launchers and hand grenades and wind up with mass shootings.

Therefore it is "ignorant and short sighted" to take away rocket launchers and hand grenades? C'mon Castanza, you know better than that...

 

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

Just like you could take away rocket launchers and hand grenades and wind up with mass shootings.

Therefore it is "ignorant and short sighted" to take away rocket launchers and hand grenades? C'mon Castanza, you know better than that...

 

Know better than what? You’re not even making an argument. Pretty clear you didn’t even read all the points either. And you’re not even reading the Constitution in the context and spirit which it was written. 
 

But hey go listen to your President. The guy who says a 9mm will “blow someone’s lung out of the body” and that firing a shotgun in the air to scare off a home intruder is a good idea. 
 

Insane people exist. Address that problem. 
 

Free to choose 

3 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

Your reasoning justifies ALL armaments, even towed artillery.

Well, if you take away towed artillery, there can still be mass shootings.

That's why it is flawed.

Well you apparently missed the part where I talked about arms that can be used in a discriminatory manner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the Constitution guarantees is the right to carry a weapon.

So many weapons you already don't have the right to carry.  Guns would be just one more on the list.

But so many weapons you can still carry.  A sword.  A battleaxe.  A tomahawk.  A deer horn.

 

Yes.  A deer horn.  I mentioned on the hobbies thread that I purchased a house in Dunsmuir.  A tenant of the home was stabbed to death last year by a transvestite armed with a deer horn.  It was ruled self defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Now we're entering the debate of "common sense" self-defense arms.

And that's the gun control argument for things like AR-15s with high-capacity mags.

If the idea is to neutralize an attacker, you didn't need a high capacity mag when the 2nd Amendment was written.

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

When I lived on Bainbridge Island I had the right to fire a handgun or shotgun on my property but not a rifle, because the rifle is deadly at long range and there were too many homes and people on the island.

That's also a reason not to allow the carry of an AR-15.  Similar to the 'indiscriminate' argument.

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Castanza said:

And you’re not even reading the Constitution in the context and spirit which it was written. 

 

Haha.  Context when 2nd Amendment was written was 1791.

Arms they intended people to reasonably bear:

In 1791, common guns included muskets and flintlock pistols. According to the Washington Post, a "typical Revolutionary-era musket" had a one-round magazine capacity, and could fire around three effective rounds per minute - in the hands of the most skilled wielder.

https://www.ranker.com/list/firearms-in-1791/rachel-souerbry

 

Edited by ERICOPOLY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ERICOPOLY said:

And that is mentioned where in the Constitution?

Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I can likely use a firearm without infringing on those rights of someone else. An artillery cannon? Not likely. 
 

3 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

Now we're entering the debate of "common sense" self-defense arms.

And that's the gun control argument for things like AR-15s with high-capacity mags.

If the idea is to neutralize an attacker, you didn't need a high capacity mag when the 2nd Amendment was written.

The Constitution scales with technology. You should know this. Otherwise your first amendment only covers letters, smoke signals and carrier pigeons. 2nd amendment was not written for self defense or hunting. 
 

Nonsensical argument to ban AR15s when they account for a fraction of a percentage of gun related deaths. They are far less dangerous in a house than a shotgun. Banning high capacity mags has shown to be negligible in preventing anything. At best it’s said to have stopped 10% of casualties in situations. Anyone who trains could be very effective with a five round magazine. 

3 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

Nor do you need the long-range capability of a weapon like the AR-15 to defend yourself.  A revolver will do.

AR15 is not a long range weapon. It’s effective distance is about 300- 350. Beyond that accuracy is really bad and velocity drops. Where a 9mm is effective out to about 150-200. An AR style platform is much more accurate, controllable both in maneuverability and secure grip. Over penetration is more of a problem with shotguns in a house. Shooting buckshot in your house is a really really bad idea. You will hit someone else. There are plenty of 5.56 and 9mm rounds that are very low penetration and often can be stopped within a single wall (drywall, stud, drywall). 

A revolver is terribly inaccurate and your chances of shooting something you did not intend are drastically higher.

 

3 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

When I lived on Bainbridge Island I had the right to fire a handgun or shotgun on my property but not a rifle, because the rifle is deadly at long range and there were too many homes and people on the island.

That's also a reason not to allow the carry of an AR-15.  Similar to the 'indiscriminate' argument.

Well whoever came up with that rule is a moron because a handgun will travel a long distance as well. And frankly that doesn’t even matter in the context of this discussion. If you’re shooting someone in your house it doesn’t matter how far the round could travel because bullet dynamics, penetration, grain, etc all come into play. And any round is only going to go as far as the terrain dictates.
 

Ever been in a shoot house which multiple people carrying AR15s and shooting in a 10x10 concrete room? I have and you’re fears are misplaced. 

 

2 minutes ago, ERICOPOLY said:

Insane people cannot carry out mass shootings without guns.

I'm certain of this.

Removing guns from law abiding citizens does not prevent insane people from doing insane things. 
 

Im certain of this. 
 

Banning guns will not get rid of them. That is an impossible feat and a fools errand. Let’s make murder and drugs illegal too! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ERICOPOLY said:

 

Haha.  Context when 2nd Amendment was written was 1791.

Arms they intended people to reasonably bear:

In 1791, common guns included muskets and flintlock pistols. According to the Washington Post, a "typical Revolutionary-era musket" had a one-round magazine capacity, and could fire around three effective rounds per minute - in the hands of the most skilled wielder.

https://www.ranker.com/list/firearms-in-1791/rachel-souerbry

 

Yes and that was the cutting edge weaponry used by modern militaries. Another ignorant argument. Does your 1st amendment only cover smoke signals, hand written letters and carrier pigeons? 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Castanza said:

Yes and that was the cutting edge weaponry used by modern militaries. Another ignorant argument. Does your 1st amendment only cover smoke signals, hand written letters and carrier pigeons? 
 

 

So the 2nd Amendment grants you the right to bear cutting edge weaponry used by modern militaries?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...