Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2214517)

I compiled a list of lies spouted (intentionally or out of ignorance) by certain individuals in this short thread for anyone who is following:
1. AK rifles “are for obliterating an enemy in war.” (Only single-fire AK’s are legal to possess. No army would intentionally go to war with single-fire weapons if they had a choice. AK’s used in war are 3-shot burst and automatic capable.)
2. The 2nd amendment was intended to apply to people in a well-regulated militia, “not free for all of all weapons by anybody who wants one.” And The 2nd Amendment is about a well regulated militia and not the right of private citizens to have weapons designed for warfare.
3. The NRA was “historically about gun control.” “William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis." Since then, the NRA has been the premier firearms education organization in the world. “ “A description of the background and development of the NRA notes NRA support for moderate measures of gun control in the 1950's and the 1960's; however, in the 1970's, the NRA began to notice that legislation which it had earlier supported had failed to curb crime or impair criminal access to firearms, while it was adversely affecting the firearms freedoms of the law-abiding citizen.”
4. “The Founding Fathers had read a lot of English history and did not want private armies around that would march on Parliament.” The founding fathers had just fought a war against tyranny and wanted the people to have the power to prevent that from re-occurring. They also wanted to preclude a standing national army, so the people would be allowed to own weapons of war in order to fight when necessary. The thought of having to spell out the right of people to own weapons to protect themselves would have been ridiculous to them. They would be mortified that we actually have to fight for the right to protect ourselves today.
5. “No one is suggesting banning of all guns. That is a straw man argument.” Quite a few people are suggesting that, and many are suggesting banning all but 22s so that no one can accuse them of suggesting the banning of all guns.
6. Florida is banning books and dictating what Disney can and cannot say. Not one book has been banned. Certain books are not allowed in school libraries (just like many books and magazines have never been allowed in school libraries). Disney is allowed to say what they want and when they want. But if you are going to attack the state government and spout lies about it, then do not expect to keep the extra special treatment you have received for decades.
7. “Assault weapons are generally high-powered semiautomatic firearms where each round has up to four times the muzzle velocity of a handgun round. This means that each round from an assault weapon inflicts greater damage to the human body than a round from a typical handgun. Assault weapons are generally designed to fire rounds at a greater rate than other firearms, and when combined with high-capacity magazines, they enable a shooter to fire more rounds over a short period.”
a. AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag. The standard AR-15 bullet carries kinetic energy of 1300 foot pounds; a typical hunting rifle bullet has between 2600 and 4000 foot pounds
b. Any rifle has a higher muzzle velocity than almost any handgun round. The longer the barrel the more time the expanding gases have to push against the bullet increasing its speed. The AR15 and AK do not have higher muzzle velocities than typical hunting rifles.
c. A magazine takes a couple of seconds at most to change. So higher capacity magazines are not the problem.
8. “We are talking about weapons used today in the Ukraine-Russian war not about Agincourt. These are assault weapons and many other kinds.” The weapons generally used in Ukraine or any other war are not the same as AR and LEGAL AK rifles. Knives are used in war. Does that make knives weapons of war? Or only high-powered knives?
9. “We live in Florida with open carry” No explanation required.
10. “How about banning books and doing away with the teaching of true, factual history! Feels like going down a slippery slope, like Germany in the 1930's”. Again, no books banned and no doing away with teaching of true, factual history.
11. "Not allowed in public schools" usually means also in public school libraries. Which means a book ban. No. You do not get to redefine terms. Not allowed in public schools means not allowed (or we can allow banned) in public schools which includes the library. Book banning means you do not have the right to purchase or own the book, you know, kind of like what you are trying to do with guns. Objecting to playboy not being allowed in schools are you, because it reminds you of Nazi Germany????

Originally Posted by njbchbum (Post 2214063)

But would the HIPPA law re privacy prevent the release of a medical history?

Originally Posted by Lindsyburnsy (Post 2214123)

Unless you are an active duty soldier, you should be deprived from owning an AK rifle. Those weapons are for obliterating an enemy in war. Pretty sure we can live without them on our US streets. “Well regulated militia “ not free for all of all weapons by anybody who wants one.

Originally Posted by Whitley (Post 2214157)

Hi. I am not saying this in anyway to insult you. The weapon most often mentioned with an "assault rifle" gun ban is an armalite 15 AR15). It is in no way the most powerful weapon (I would not use one hunting boar). The reason most anti first amendment people cite this rifle is because it looks scary. Can you please let me know what you mean when you say a weapon meant for a battlefield. What constitutes an assault rifle for you? Maybe we can agree if we make clear the definitions.

Originally Posted by Blackbird45 (Post 2214171)

I do own a handgun, so I'm not against firearm ownership. But I am a true believer that everyone who owns a firearm should have training.

A system similar to getting a driver's license. Just as in the types of vehicles you drive, a car, motorcycle, truck. You do the same with firearms, hunting, handgun and assault weapon. The NRA can choose the calcification and do the training, once you pass on the type of firearms you qualify for you can purchase that type of firearm and the ammunition. while this is going on there could be a full background check.

Also there has to be training on how to safely to store your firearm. This business of leaving a firearm in your glove compartment in your car parked on the street overnight is a no, no. There has to be some common sense involved. Which means there has to be responsibility of being an owner. Which would mean if you were smart you would get some type of insurance to protect yourself.

I also believe that the industry should be able to come up with a home protective firearm that will stop an intruder that is easy to handle and will not take down you front door and the neighbor's dog. You don't have to kill an intruder; you just have to stop them in their tracks.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214524)

You make a lot of assertions with little evidence for them.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2214517)

I compiled a list of lies spouted (intentionally or out of ignorance) by certain individuals in this short thread for anyone who is following:
1. AK rifles “are for obliterating an enemy in war.” (Only single-fire AK’s are legal to possess. No army would intentionally go to war with single-fire weapons if they had a choice. AK’s used in war are 3-shot burst and automatic capable.)
2. The 2nd amendment was intended to apply to people in a well-regulated militia, “not free for all of all weapons by anybody who wants one.” And The 2nd Amendment is about a well regulated militia and not the right of private citizens to have weapons designed for warfare.
3. The NRA was “historically about gun control.” “William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis." Since then, the NRA has been the premier firearms education organization in the world. “ “A description of the background and development of the NRA notes NRA support for moderate measures of gun control in the 1950's and the 1960's; however, in the 1970's, the NRA began to notice that legislation which it had earlier supported had failed to curb crime or impair criminal access to firearms, while it was adversely affecting the firearms freedoms of the law-abiding citizen.”
4. “The Founding Fathers had read a lot of English history and did not want private armies around that would march on Parliament.” The founding fathers had just fought a war against tyranny and wanted the people to have the power to prevent that from re-occurring. They also wanted to preclude a standing national army, so the people would be allowed to own weapons of war in order to fight when necessary. The thought of having to spell out the right of people to own weapons to protect themselves would have been ridiculous to them. They would be mortified that we actually have to fight for the right to protect ourselves today.
5. “No one is suggesting banning of all guns. That is a straw man argument.” Quite a few people are suggesting that, and many are suggesting banning all but 22s so that no one can accuse them of suggesting the banning of all guns.
6. Florida is banning books and dictating what Disney can and cannot say. Not one book has been banned. Certain books are not allowed in school libraries (just like many books and magazines have never been allowed in school libraries). Disney is allowed to say what they want and when they want. But if you are going to attack the state government and spout lies about it, then do not expect to keep the extra special treatment you have received for decades.
7. “Assault weapons are generally high-powered semiautomatic firearms where each round has up to four times the muzzle velocity of a handgun round. This means that each round from an assault weapon inflicts greater damage to the human body than a round from a typical handgun. Assault weapons are generally designed to fire rounds at a greater rate than other firearms, and when combined with high-capacity magazines, they enable a shooter to fire more rounds over a short period.”
a. AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag. The standard AR-15 bullet carries kinetic energy of 1300 foot pounds; a typical hunting rifle bullet has between 2600 and 4000 foot pounds
b. Any rifle has a higher muzzle velocity than almost any handgun round. The longer the barrel the more time the expanding gases have to push against the bullet increasing its speed. The AR15 and AK do not have higher muzzle velocities than typical hunting rifles.
c. A magazine takes a couple of seconds at most to change. So higher capacity magazines are not the problem.
8. “We are talking about weapons used today in the Ukraine-Russian war not about Agincourt. These are assault weapons and many other kinds.” The weapons generally used in Ukraine or any other war are not the same as AR and LEGAL AK rifles. Knives are used in war. Does that make knives weapons of war? Or only high-powered knives?
9. “We live in Florida with open carry” No explanation required.
10. “How about banning books and doing away with the teaching of true, factual history! Feels like going down a slippery slope, like Germany in the 1930's”. Again, no books banned and no doing away with teaching of true, factual history.
11. "Not allowed in public schools" usually means also in public school libraries. Which means a book ban. No. You do not get to redefine terms. Not allowed in public schools means not allowed (or we can allow banned) in public schools which includes the library. Book banning means you do not have the right to purchase or own the book, you know, kind of like what you are trying to do with guns. Objecting to playboy not being allowed in schools are you, because it reminds you of Nazi Germany????

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 2214200)

It is not accurate to compare a legal, semi-automatic weapon that can be purchased in most gun stores to a fully automatic weapon that soldiers use in war, and that are not sold in gun stores. That is an apples to oranges comparison. They are two entirely different weapons.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214205)

How about watching the news. Prohibit Assault Weapons | Everytown | Everytown

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2214019)

And yet - none of these law-abiding citizens with a generously-written right to carry a handgun openly, used their lawfully-carried gun to stop the shooter. In fact, the shooter is still running around free.

So much for having a gun for defense.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214211)

Forgotten words: ‘A well regulated Militia’ | The Hill

I would bet that the Founding Fathers had read a lot of English history and did not want private armies around that would march on Parliament. That is not what the 2nd Amendment was about back then but was about a "well regulated militia".

And they probably know about Roman History-- Year of the Four Emperors - Wikipedia.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214215)

No one is suggesting banning of all guns. That is a straw man argument.

Originally Posted by Blackbird45 (Post 2214225)

The first amendment: are you not aware what been going on here in Fl. Banning certain books, what Disney can say and not say. I'm just saying there are many people out there who have firearms and don't have a clue how to handle them.

Originally Posted by mikeycereal (Post 2214234)

Thanks for providing this for those who "claim" ignorance. Nobody "needs" these types of weapons. And it's not because they "look scary." Unfortunately this is just a little friendly chat site where others like us can simply choose to argue the point back and forth and the info should be pounded into the lawmakers because they either don't seem to get it or choose to ignore it.

I'm all for tougher background checks. Maybe having family members come along to ok the purchase and verify that their son/sibling/husband isn't some stockpiling psycho with revenge as a motive. Yes it's come to that point where mommy and daddy need to sign off already. And yeah it's been like that where a few bad apples make it a hassle for everyone, I get it but that's where we've been.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214244)

The 2nd Amendment is about a well regulated militia and not the right of private citizens to have weapons designed for warfare.

Originally Posted by Whitley (Post 2214250)

Banning books is just terrible. I remember how angry I was when I turned 12 and could not buy Playboy. Stop Book Banning.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214270)

We are talking about weapons used today in the Ukraine-Russian war not about Agincourt. These are assault weapons and many other kinds.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214291)

Look up the weapons used in the Ukraine-Russian war.

List of Russo-Ukrainian War military equipment - Wikipedia

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214497)

Actually read the article.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214558)

Florida at Center of Debate as School Book Bans Surge Nationally - The New York Times

Just Google and you can find a great deal of materials backed me up. I do know something about book bans as I have a MA in Librarianship and have worked in a number of different libraries of all kinds-- academic, law, and public ones.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214496)

"Not allowed in public schools" usually means also in public school libraries. Which means a book ban.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2214572)

I couldn't read the NYT article without paying, and that definitely wasn't going to happen.

I guess our disagreement is based on different definition of terms, exacerbated by people who compare books being banned in schools with Nazi Germany.

Books banned by Nazi Germany were burned and not allowed to be owned. Books banned in Florida (NOT BY STATE OF FLORIDA, but by local school districts) are banned only from public schools while parents and others are allowed to own them and provide them to their children if they so desire. Major difference.

There are many cases that uphold that banning books in schools violates the first amendment. The only Supreme Court case I could find was a 4-4 split. So, that cannot be considered settled law.

But, I would like you to go on record as supporting Playboy, Penthouse, and Guns and Ammo, or the Shades of Gray series in Public schools because the children have a first amendment right to them. If you do support that, we know where you stand. If you don't support that, we know that you are a hypcrite.

Originally Posted by Wondering (Post 2214471)

What society needs are more guns - not! Isn't it "great" that we live in Florida with open carry and doing away with concealed weapons permits. Is this really the State of freedom? Shouldn't we be free from gun violence! How about banning books and doing away with the teaching of true, factual history! Feels like going down a slippery slope, like Germany in the 1930's.

Originally Posted by Haggar (Post 2214509)

What is the basis for that statement? How many times has that happened? Many? - it happens occasionally I suppose but I can't really recall reading about it more than a few times in my lifetime.

I did read recently about the youth who was shot because he knocked on the wrong door.

We're thought about having a gun in the house. However don't really seeing us being the winner in a shoot-out.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214561)

Why We Can't Ignore the "Militia" Clause of the Second Amendment | Mises Wire

Also very interesting.

This is about having a well trained well equipped state militia. Which we do in the states. They are called National Guards for various states.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214576)

The needs of the community are part of library collection development. Those are usually the job of someone with a lot of experience assessing how well certain materials are for that library.


School librarians would also take that approach. What is good for the community as far as books included. They should not be involved in schemes to get voters for so and do by making them players in a shell game.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214574)

What does Nazi Germany have to do with the US in 2023? That was a totalitarian state under the control of a madman-- Adolf Hitler.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2214581)

Exactly my point. But, that is the comparison made in this thread by multiple people. Glad we can agree on one point...it is absolutely rediculous to compare what is happening in FL to Nazi Germany.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2214579)

So a school librarian should make the decision for what should be included in the library..... Based on what? the individual beliefs of that person overrides the beliefs of the community? If the librarian selects one book and not another, that is just as surely book banning as if the community made the decision. Surely this was not intended to be a serious comment. If

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214585)

What I happening in Florida is just Woke shenanigans mainly by a man in political office.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214558)

Florida at Center of Debate as School Book Bans Surge Nationally - The New York Times

Just Google and you can find a great deal of materials backed me up. I do know something about book bans as I have a MA in Librarianship and have worked in a number of different libraries of all kinds-- academic, law, and public ones.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2214578)

"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."

You are not allowed to re-write this just because you want to. It does not say the right of states to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It did not enumerate the right for states but for the people. It was trying to prevent a standing national army and to protect the rights of the states from tyrannical national government. And to do this it enumerated the right for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. It was not talking about personal protection (from home invaders and such) and hunting as that was assumed to be so given that it did not even need to be mentioned.

Just like the 1st amendment did not specify free speech using the internet, the second amendment did not specify which arms were considered acceptable.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214342)

Banning books in libraries is ridiculous. The parents can control to a certain extent which books they read at home by not getting those books from a library. And once you tell a teen they cannot do something that usually ends in them doing just that. Especially when the arts are concerned. Elvis for instance and his music for another group of teens.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214576)

The needs of the community are part of library collection development. Those are usually the job of someone with a lot of experience assessing how well certain materials are for that library.


School librarians would also take that approach. What is good for the community as far as books included. They should not be involved in schemes to get voters for so and do by making them players in a shell game.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214586)

It is not a personal decision but a professional one based on what other librarians in other school libraries are doing for their communities. They usually will keep such books in their libraries. I mean the ones some parents do not want their kids having access to but it is not up to a small group of parents but is based on long term professional practices.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2214496)

"Not allowed in public schools" usually means also in public school libraries. Which means a book ban.