What part of shall not be infringed don't you people understand?
@M0RT0S, right, it still makes sense to follow that literally, since guns are still exactly the same as they were when that was written. Oh wait...
@Carmen Sandiego, if you wanna pull the “ 2A only applies to the firearms they had available then 1: do some research because they had repeating firearms prior to the constitution being written and 2: ALL AMENDMENTS would only apply to the technology of the time which means you have no freedom of speech on this outlet or any outlet that isn’t a newspaper
@Carmen Sandiego, Right because the constitution has never been updated, that's why black people are still slaves. Oh wait...
Dont really care about the whole "what" guns they control, but shouldnt there be stricter limits on "who" can get guns like the mentally ill, and better background checks? Its been documented that I've been suicidal in the past and am on antidepressants, yet was able to get a handgun for my birthday last year. Maybe like a psych eval needed?
@gettinitfosho, are you going to kill yourself? Upon answering this question your psych eval will be completed.
@ImNotRacistBut, sounds like this is exactly the problem. I should've said psych eval at the very least, but really think I and others like me shouldnt be able to get a gun
@gettinitfosho, the problem with this is that the line would be very hard to define. Mental illness is a tricky thing to put labels on. Maybe it makes sense that someone who was once suicidal can’t get a gun. But what if that person is no longer suicidal? Should they be barred forever from owning a firearm? What if someone just has a small anxiety disorder? Because mental illness is so nuanced, it would be nigh impossible to write policy for it that can’t be easily abused. Not only that, but all it would take is one anti gun psychologist to bar you from owning a gun for life out of spite. It’s in interesting idea but falls short in practice.
@Lord Cthulhu, very well put. I myself have been flagged for aggressive and violent tendencies on multiple psych evals. But 5 min with the doctor and they tell me I’m fine and can’t explain why i was flagged
@gettinitfosho, the thing to consider is that a gun is a tool, nothing more. If someone wants to kill another person there are multways to do it without a gun. Same with suicide, there are plenty of ways to do it if the person is committed. You can buy a pack of knives from walmart with spare change and use those to off yourself/somebody. Do you think we should have psych evals for kitchen knives, or hammers, or rocks on the ground, or access to traffic
@Lord Cthulhu, also opens up more avenues for abuse, one notable example being “yeah my ex girlfriend is threatening to kill herself” then he breaks into her house after she has been red flagged and had her guns taken and beats her to a pulp or worse.
@gettinitfosho, if i had been denied my gun sale because im on an antidepressant that wouldve exacerbated my symptoms and bad habits. I agree with your premise but that requires being able to trust other peoples judgements and evaluations
@Gallchobhair, it’s harder to kill multiple people without a gun though. That’s why I think the best legislation is those that limit the type of gun that can be bought and magazine sizes. Like I’m pro gun ownership, everyone should have one, but nobody needs an Assault riffle
@BearDaniels, it isn’t about the gun or magazine size. I can get the same number of well placed shots with my pump shotgun as my dad’s semi-auto. And given the location where most shootings happen you could kill even more with a car. A gun is a tool. Additionally ASSAULT RIFLE is a vaguely defined term that can mean whatever the anti-gun liberal wants it to so they can walk over constitutional rights
@BearDaniels, one further point is that guns aren’t the only volume killer. Poisons and biological weapons, dirty bombs and improvised explosives, terroristic arson, and even driving vehicles into high population areas. Some methods are harder to obtain than others, but most are feasible for the average person to be able to obtain and enact.
@gettinitfosho, as a person with severe depression, I can confidently say that if a person truly wants to end their life, access to a gun more than likely won't change the end product of their plans. There's plenty more ways to turn out the lights.
@BearDaniels, barely anyone in the US owns an assault rifle...
@Gallchobhair, while I agree with the rest of your point, assault rifle.is a clearly defined term, the US military, NATO, and several other countries (such as the UK) have all adopted the same definition. Anti-gun nuts like to make it up on the spot, but that doesnt mean that its proper meaning is any less defined.
@Bloodthirsty Penguin, you’re gonna have to point me to your source. I’ve been around the US military all my life and i have never heard a definition. In fact I don’t believe I’ve even heard assault rifle used when discussing their equipment. They just call it a rifle. I could care less about NATO and other countries. I agree the nutters are nuts but I’m gonna need a source for the definition
That defeats the entire purpose of the second amendment.
@Gallchobhair, no problem. Few things first though. Firstly, unless you were in logistics or pecurements it's not unlikely that you haven't heard the term, as that is where it's mainly used, but to classify a gun as just a "rifle" is very much a simplification given the drastic differences between different types of rifles. Secondly, given that those people are your allies, maybe you should care.
As far as the definition goes, there are two instances where "assault rifle" was defined in the US military, although there may have been more. It was defined as (I'm paraphrasing here), any rifle capable of select fire, lightweight, chambered in a intermediate calibre, and has a detachable magazine.
The point of this definition was to distinguish assault rifles from semi-automatic rifles, battle rifles (full auto, chambered for full powered rounds), and various types of machine guns, such as squad automatic weapons (SAW) and the like.
@Gallchobhair, it is also worth noting that the NRA-ILA also use this definition, but without the clause of it being lightweight and having a detachable magazine. The issue here is that it would allow something such as the M249 to be classed as an assault rifle, despite being a SAW (I believe it is now classed as a light machine gun?).
one instance of this definition was made during a freedom of information request in the 1980's and was given by (I forgot the title sorry) the guy in charge of US armoured divisions in the 1980's. Unfortunately I cant find the source right now as trying to Google this stuff just gives you anti-gun propaganda. I wrote an answer about this on quora about a year ago with this source cited so I will try find it for you when I get chance.
@Bloodthirsty Penguin, few things. I don’t care about the other countries cause they’re irrelevant to the discussion. I’m not at all saying I actually don’t care. My brother in law is British in the US military so i somewhat have to care. 2: based on my understanding of previously used military equipment your explaination makes sense, even though most, cause a few might still exist, units don’t have select fire rifles. I believe those were discontinued. 3: not calling you out, as i said it makes sense, but could you provide a source to double check
@Gallchobhair, the second instance:
Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70 published November 1970.
“Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.”
@Gallchobhair, given that at no point were we solely discussing the US I dont see how other countries are irrelevant when one of the reasons the term is still in circulation is to help the coordination of small arms between NATO countries and gun manufacturers.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty sure nearly every standard issue rifle in the US military is capable of select fire. I know for certain that the HK 416 that is currently being considered for US Special Operations such as DELTA is, same as the FN SCAR that it is intended to replace. The current version of the M4 is capable of select fire (semi and burst), and so is the proposed replacement in the M27 and all of the currently considered ACR bids.
@Gallchobhair, also obligatory "I play call of duty so that pretty much makes me a weapons expert and they call guns assault rifles so therefore I'm right" /s
@Gallchobhair, hope my overly complicated comment chain helps, if theres anything that needs more clarity give me a shout, hard to proof read on phone.
@Bloodthirsty Penguin, 1: about the other countries, the coordination bit does have merit, i just don’t like referencing other countries when deciding in policy so that kinda jumped in. As for the rifles my information could be out of date or I misunderstood and i have little knowledge about what is incoming. My preference is actually pre-1900 firearms, just a preference. But thank you for the source and info. Greatly appreciated and enjoyed
@Gallchobhair, everyone has their preference bud, and you cant be expected to know everything even if your preference was modern day, you dont need to justify not knowing something :)
I'm glad it helped, if I manage to find the other one I'll shoot it over.
Regarding coordination, from what I infer, it seems that the defintion was actually coined to help coordinate the procurement of new firearms from manufacturers. By classifying each type of rifle, it made it easier when criteria was set out for new rifle designs. Prior to this defintion, I assume they just listed the requirements separately, but decided it was just easier to list it under one term, and given that the German STG 44 (think that's the right one, my WW2 knowledge is a little iffy), pretty much met all of this criteria, decided to coin the term after the STG's translation; assault gun.
Was nice talking to you, while I dont know much about pre 1900's stuff I always like to chat about guns so I'm happy to talk :)
@Gallchobhair, gun owners here in the UK are a rare bunch unfortunately, and most tend to keep quiet for fear of being labelled a gun nut, shame as it means it's hard to have a decent chat about fire arms outside of one or two close friends.
@Bloodthirsty Penguin, i can understand that. Even amongst gun nuts here in the states if rattle on about black powder pistols and the rarest pre civil war repeaters i get some crazy stares. I prefer those because i feel there is more ingenuity in their design as alot if the times the design was brand spanking new. It keeps it interesting. Nice talking with you too man. Anytime
@BearDaniels, you must be one of those people that think the AR-15 is an assault rifle lol. Not that I blame you. Being uneducated in the subject makes people fear guns, which is the opposite of what a the second amendment was supposed to accomplish. Guns makes the world safer, it sounds weird but science backs this up and it makes sense if you think about it. Who is gonna rob or attack someone if there is a good chance they have a gun.
@Gallchobhair, right! So I’ve learned not to use assault rifle as a term. What I mean is large magazine automatic weapon. Which are illegal in most states which was my point, that’s good legislation.
@BearDaniels, while still an infringement on 2A and actually not illegal, just requires more hoops to jump through, that isn’t good legislation. As previously stated by many, a gun is a tool that can be swapped for many other tools to commit mass harm. Safety concerns are not about limiting guns but about educating the public, but people are so terrified of a gun because they’ve been beaten into submission by left leaning media outlets.
@Gallchobhair, you don’t need a automatic weapon to defend yourself. 2A says you have to right to own guns it doesn’t say anything about the specific guns you can own.
@BearDaniels, it says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That means any gun control law is unconstitutional. Additionally it’s puprose is to maintain a free state. And again, automatic weapons aren’t illegal, just requires more redtape
@BearDaniels, yes. That’s on purpose. The constitution does not “give us permission to own guns” it specifically and categorically limits the government to not be able to deny us the ability to own guns.
@big freedom, yeah any I’m all for people owning guns. I have a few guns myself. I just don’t think people should have access to military grade weapons
@Gallchobhair, patiently false simply because there are gun control laws that aren’t considered unconstitutional. If you disagree then you aren’t even arguing with me you are arguing with the various judges across the country. But I’m sure you, keyboard warrior, know more than legal experts.
@BearDaniels, that’s fine. You can have that opinion. I wish the Supreme Court would do their job and defend and uphold the constitution.
@BearDaniels, first: calling me a keyboard warrior is just disrespectful and unnecessary. The fact that you’ve taken to name calling is sad. I say the things i do so people can see that error of gun control. 2: yes I disagree with the judges across the nation that uphold gun laws. The Constitution states that the government can’t make laws forbidding us from owning guns yes, the purpose is to rebel against a tyrannical government. If the governing body wants to take away your method of fighting them that is the first sign you need weapons. If you can show me real evidence to the contrary of anything i’ve said then do it, i will hear you out
@BearDaniels, additionally if you do some research you will find numerous examples that these laws are unconstitutional, yet are gone along with to appease soft people. Example: federal background checks were deemed unconstitutional and authority was given to county sheriffs. Piertz v US ( i may have that name slighty off)
@Gallchobhair, people who think they are going to violently fight the government with their guns are exactly the people who shouldn’t have them. The government has tanks, armored cars, bombs and much more. You and people like you have delusions of grandeur and are a danger to themselves and the people around them. If the government does become tyrannical everyone would be better served to protest like they are currently doing in Hong Kong. If you try and fight when you are hopelessly outgunned you’ll simply end up dead and will have given legitimacy to the governments need for tyrannical policies
@BearDaniels, first i have no delusions of any type. Second nobody wants to fight the government, however if they become tyrannical a protest won’t do anything because a tyrannical government won’t care what you have to say. Case in point, the American Revolution. We tried diplomacy with Britain and they didn’t care, we were forced to fight. Third, the politicians who would be stomping on our rights, in this scenario, are not the ones physically in the tanks, planes, dropping bombs, etc. military members are and if you really think they are so robotic to just accept those orders then you need to reevaluate your mindset. Military people signed on to defend their country, not corrupt, tyrannical government leaders. Lastly you have once again devolved into name calling and accusations on my sanity which tells me you have no footing to any of this and simply refuse to have a civil discussion. So i am finished. I hope you do more research and learn more about your God given rights
@Gallchobhair, no, you are quite clearly deluded. First off the military is a branch of the government so when you say that the government is tyrannical you are also saying the military is as well. If you think that’s unlikely then let me point you toward an endless list of militaries that supported the oppression of their own people throughout history. Hell thats basically the purpose of the police, to keep the public in line. So presupposing a tyrannical government which includes the military, if you think you’re “revolution” would survive a weak against the current military based solely on the fact that they did it in the revolution you must really live in wonderland. Please grow up and join society, I don’t want to lose my own gun rights because some losers who need big guns to compensate for their personal inadequacy to shoot up a government building and give them an excuse to take guns away from the rest of us.
@BearDaniels, sir. Please stop. You have AGAIN lowered a discussion to insults and demeaning retorts. I don’t know your history with guns, government, or the military and i have no interest in trying to have a conversation with you. In this reply you have called me deluded, claimed i have compensation issues, am a loser, and am not part of society. At this point you might as well start with “ yo mama” jokes. If you’d like to have an honest, civil discussion i am open. But personal attacks are unwarranted and have no affect. I hope you take this to heart and enjoy the rest of your day
Can I sign it in buckshot?
Boomer quality meme
Gun laws and this app, yoh, anyways I don't think Americans understand their disregard for regulating guns; obviously giving guns out too easily is seriously stupid, yes people can find avenues around guns, no that doesn't justify giving those people guns. Yes, most people are sane most of the time, no, those that have lapses in this matter should not have guns.
So that would be no?
yeah... but yet supports gonna take your rights Bloomberg...
@zzyber, Bernie's the only one that relatively progun on the dem side without being told to say that by the nra