[Cantwaittoarrive]

Originally Posted by paulandjean

ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY. Somebody makes money training the shooter, Somebody makes money selling guns and ammo to the shooters. Has nothing to do with "right to bear arms"

Even if I agreed with this statement which I don't so what? without getting into a political discussion, most actions by the USA government have to do with money. Most things that are done weather it's bailing out corporations, invading countries or raising taxes are motivated by the economic impact it's been that way no matter what party is in control. For me it is about the "right to bear arms" for my family members that have died and / or served to insure our constitutional rights it's been about all of our constitutional rights and their buddy next to them! not about the "money"

[EdV]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

....I have not shot a gun since 1980 or so but had a couple of 12 gauges and a few 22s for target shooting. These were a single shot and a Winchester like replica with a lever action....

Of course you do realize that the AR-15 used in last month’s tragic shooting is a 22 caliber bullet. Right?

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by EdV

Of course you do realize that the AR-15 used in last month’s tragic shooting is a 22 caliber bullet. Right?

.223 I believe. It is an assault rifle though I had a single shot bolt action .22 and a Marlin lever action. Quite different weapons. Marlin Firearms

AR-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marlin makes very reasonable weapons for hunting.

[EdV]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

.223 I believe. It is an assault rifle though I had a single shot bolt action .22 and a Marlin lever action. Quite different weapons. Marlin Firearms

AR-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marlin makes very reasonable weapons for hunting.

And your benign Marlin lever action rifle held what, 15 rounds or so, each of which would drop a thirty five pound child instantly. I’m really sorry to have to post this but it bothers me when people won’t ‘stay the course’ to keep our children safe.

[ilovetv]

I'm not defending personal possession of assault rifles, but I still think there are many questions to be asked and addressed at the individual and local level before getting crazed across the nation about more restrictive gun laws or not.

Why was this shooter in CT able to get into the school and shoot the principal, especially when they had a new system that one would assume had most or all the features needed to keep intruders out?

Why did people know the shooter was deeply troubled since grade school but yet, when he was seen with the mom at the gun range getting training and practice on the Bushmaster, nobody looks into:

a) why the mom has such a weapon;

b) why does the son need to be trained on the weapon/

c) what does the dad know about his son's involvement with weapons at the mom's home?

Surely, a man who could afford to pay $289,000 per year in alimony has the resources to get help for his son and make sure he is living in a safe and appropriate place that fits his known mental disorders.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by EdV

And your benign Marlin lever action rifle held what, 15 rounds or so, each of which would drop a thirty five pound child instantly. I’m really sorry to have to post this but it bothers me when people won’t ‘stay the course’ to keep our children safe.

I believe my Marlin Model held around 7 or 8 long rifle 22s. Have not used it since 1980 or so. Hard to remember.

And what does this mean 'stay the course". You seem to be arguing now for a ban of all long rifles, shotguns as well as all handguns. That's just impratical and could never be enforced. An assault rifle has no business being in the hands of anyone but a soldier, police officer, or some other fully trained and very closely watched professional.

My definition of "assault rifle" would be how a reasonable person would use it to cover weapons made for SWAT, soldiers, cops, and others threatened by the use of deadly force by criminals, enemy soldiers, and terrorists.

[Russ_Boston]

I love how people say something like "It's part of our constitution". In case you missed it our constitution has been amended with 27 official amendments (including the 2nd) and clarified with tens of thousands of court rulings. Things need to be re-interpreted from time to time based on new technology and new economies etc. Maybe it's time to re-clarify this amendment.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Russ_Boston

I love how people say something like "It's part of our constitution". In case you missed it our constitution has been amended with 27 official amendments (including the 2nd) and clarified with tens of thousands of court rulings. Things need to be re-interpreted from time to time based on new technology and new economies etc. Maybe it's time to re-clarify this amendment.

I agree. So much of the 1780s world is so different from the world of today. The Freedom of the Press, Religious Freedom, the Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of Speech all of these rights mean something quite different in say 1945 than they do after the Founders put in the Bill of Rights. They mean something quite different now in 2013 as well.

I can understand many Americans being adamant about the right to bears arms during WWII when they were afraid that German, Russian, Italian or Japanese troops might land on the two coasts. They did bomb Hawaii and invade some Alaskan islands as well as sunk various ships near coasts. U.S. Merchant Ships Sunk or Damaged in World War II

And, Indian war parties did raid various settlements up to 1911. American Indian Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Battle of Kelley Creek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can see some of the Founding Fathers might argue for the right to have muskets, ax, sword and the like for common white male landowners. Not sure if they would argue though for them having things like dynamite or large stores of black powder, cannon, crude grenade, etc.

Bet that the Founding Fathers would see the reason of storing black powder barrels in a reasonable place where they would not have a chance to catch fire and blow up whatever surrounding structures were there. Gun Safety Regulation in Early America

[EdV]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

I believe my Marlin Model held around 7 or 8 long rifle 22s. Have not used it since 1980 or so. Hard to remember.

And what does this mean 'stay the course". You seem to be arguing now for a ban of all long rifles, shotguns as well as all handguns. That's just impratical and could never be enforced. An assault rifle has no business being in the hands of anyone but a soldier, police officer, or some other fully trained and very closely watched professional.

My definition of "assault rifle" would be how a reasonable person would use it to cover weapons made for SWAT, soldiers, cops, and others threatened by the use of deadly force by criminals, enemy soldiers, and terrorists.

Every Marlin 22 lever rifle built since 1891 has a magazine capacity of between 15 and 19 rounds (depending on barrel length) as described here. So why did you feel the need to own a weapon with such a high capacity?

By ‘stay the course’ I mean the one laid out by the NRA in their press conference of a week or two ago. A trained ‘good guy’ with a gun in every public school.

Furthermore, it’s annoying to see so many posts referring to ‘assault rifles’ by posters who have decided to make up their own definition. Since the AR-15 looks like the M16 assault rifle, it must be an assault rifle. Well it isn’t. It is a semi-automatic rifle period.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by EdV;60***0

Every Marlin 22 lever rifle built since 1891 has a magazine capacity of between 15 and 19 rounds (depending on barrel length) as described here. So why did you feel the need to own a weapon with such a high capacity?

By ‘stay the course’ I mean the one laid out by the NRA in their press conference of a week or two ago. A trained ‘good guy’ with a gun in every public school.

Furthermore, it’s annoying to see so many posts referring to ‘assault rifles’ by posters who have decided to make up their own definition. Since the AR-15 looks like the M16 assault rifle, it must be an assault rifle. Well it isn’t. It is a semi-automatic rifle period.

I said I had a Marlin lever action back in the 1970s. Never said I have one now. I got it when I was 12 which I lived in Reno, Nevada where many kids aged 12 or so also had weapons they hunted with as there were a lot of game in the outskirts of Reno like rattlesnakes, rabbits, ducks, quail, etc.

The NRA does not define what an "assault rifle" is nor do laws. What does define "assualt rifle" is how it is used in English in the United States and elsewhere. A look at comination of dictionary definitions would be a good start-- Assault rifle - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary assault rifle - definition of assault rifle by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

I hardly agree with the armed man in every school idea. Jeff Flake: NRA's Armed Guard Proposal Would Be 'Edict From Washington' What is good for some school in gun loving Texas might not work for a school in Vermont.

[EdV]

I see you chose to carefully avoid referencing the more definitive description of Assault Rifle in Wikipedia. Why is that I wonder?

Furthermore, now that you had your fun with your firearms when you were younger, you now want to infringe upon our rights to have them.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by EdV

I see you chose to carefully avoid referencing the more definitive description of Assault Rifle in Wikipedia. Why is that I wonder?

Furthermore, now that you had your fun with your firearms when you were younger, you now want to infringe upon our rights to have them.

That Wikipedia article looks like is has had a very strong gun-lover contribution. I am a big fan of Wikipedia but this entry looks to have a lot of spin which can be seen from the footnotes.

I would like to see assault rifles of any kind of definition out of the hands of people like the Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes, the Newtown killer Adam Lanza, and other depraved murderers. Shooting bullets at a very high rate of speed allowed them to kill many more people than it would have if weapons that made them cock a lever and fire or whatever. I am NOT a gun fanatic and have little interest in guns.

You keep making me the issue rather than guns.

[EdV]

I’m not making you the issue T. I am debating with those of you that insist on making a particular gun type (AR-15) the issue merely based on its similar appearance to the military’s fully automatic M16 rifle. A rifle which was not used in any of the shootings have been mentioned.

I accept your opposition to the NRA proposal. But understand that those of you that want to re-instate a ban on certain gun types are asking us to once again try what was unsuccessfully implemented in the past.

The NRA is saying “we did that before and it didn’t work” so how about a new approach to the problem.

Let’s move on, shall we?

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by EdV

I’m not making you the issue T. I am debating with those of you that insist on making a particular gun type (AR-15) the issue merely based on its similar appearance to the military’s fully automatic M16 rifle. A rifle which was not used in any of the shootings have been mentioned.

I accept your opposition to the NRA proposal. But understand that those of you that want to re-instate a ban on certain gun types are asking us to once again try what was unsuccessfully implemented in the past.

The NRA is saying “we did that before and it didn’t work” so how about a new approach to the problem.

Let’s move on, shall we?

We did that before but it did not work because the arms manufacturer's lawyers kept on finding loopholes in the law. You just need a more carefully crafted law that shuts the loopholes down. A reasonable person standard for the definition of weapons that needed outlawing would close many of these loopholes and put the onus on trial lawyers to come up with a workable definition of "assault rifles".

Or, perhaps, you modify the law banning certain weapons to keep up with the ingenuity of the arms manufacturers' lawyers. That happened with Prohibition all through that social experiment.

[EdV]

Enough already. Chill