Gun Control: Bill to Ban Clips Over 10 Rounds

Banning weapons does nothing to make people safer and that is a fact.

oralloy wrote:

The same cast of characters has spewed variations on the same bilge each time assault weapons legislation was in the news, but I had trouble finding older statements under the sheer mass of quotes of these current statements.

Why give up so easily? You still haven't found any individuals or organizations who claim that large-capacity handgun clips are only useful for murdering lots of people.

Thanks for clarifying. I thought you did see a conflict. After all, the proposed bill would do nothing but regulate the unorganized militia, and you did seem to have a problem with that on Second-Amendment grounds.

Thomas wrote:

Thanks for clarifying. I thought you did see a conflict. After all, the proposed bill would do nothing but regulate the unorganized militia, and you did seem to have a problem with that on Second-Amendment grounds.

Actually, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment (the second half at least) is to prohibit the government from abusing its power over the militia to disarm the militia.

That said, this proposed law is not being justified as a regulation of the militia. Rather, it is being justified as "regulation of commerce".

IF the law were to run afoul of the Second Amendment, it would be because it violates our right to carry weapons suitable for self-defense. (Note the "if" -- I'm not saying it does violate the Second Amendment, just what the nature of the violation would be if it did.)

Also, the term "well regulated" has nothing to do with rules and regulations. It was a term used to refer to a fighting force that had trained to the degree that they could fight as a coherent unit instead of as a bunch of random individuals.

The Brady people specified shooting lots of people, and specifically ruled out self defense.

oralloy wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Thanks for clarifying. I thought you did see a conflict. After all, the proposed bill would do nothing but regulate the unorganized militia, and you did seem to have a problem with that on Second-Amendment grounds.

Actually, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment (the second half at least) is to prohibit the government from abusing its power over the militia to disarm the militia.

That said, this proposed law is not being justified as a regulation of the militia. Rather, it is being justified as "regulation of commerce".

IF the law were to run afoul of the Second Amendment, it would be because it violates our right to carry weapons suitable for self-defense. (Note the "if" -- I'm not saying it does violate the Second Amendment, just what the nature of the violation would be if it did.)

Also, the term "well regulated" has nothing to do with rules and regulations. It was a term used to refer to a fighting force that had trained to the degree that they could fight as a coherent unit instead of as a bunch of random individuals.

A well regulated militia is not a selected militia.
There is a difference.
For instance, if the police run away (again)
during a riot, the citizens might well
(and HAVE) organized themselves in defense
of their lives and other property, real and personal.
When thay DO that, thay are not a government sponsored militia.




David

oralloy wrote:

The Brady people specified shooting lots of people, and specifically ruled out self defense.

They also didn't rule out the use of large-capacity clips by law enforcement.

So you're still left with a bunch of quotations from people who say that such clips shouldn't be marketed to the general public. That's a far cry from saying that the clips are only useful for murdering lots of people.

Ignoratio elenchi: Whether they included or excluded law enforcement has nothing to do with the question of whether "shooting lots of people in a non-self-defense context" involves any activity other than murder.

If there were a difference between "only useful for shooting lots of people in a non-self-defense context" and "only useful for murdering lots of people" I would have thought you would have been able to come up with an example of an activity other than murder that fit their definition.

oralloy wrote:

Ignoratio elenchi: Whether they included or excluded law enforcement has nothing to do with the question of whether "shooting lots of people in a non-self-defense context" involves any activity other than murder.

Ignoratio elenchi: Has nothing to do with the question of whether society should allow the police to have a special right to have high capacity magazines.

oralloy wrote:

If there were a difference between "only useful for shooting lots of people in a non-self-defense context" and "only useful for murdering lots of people" I would have thought you would have been able to come up with an example of an activity other than murder that fit their definition.

I did, and you accused me of an ignoratio elenchi, so I'm not going to play that little game again.

You really need to make up your mind. Do you want to know if large-capacity clips are only useful for murdering people, or are you interested in whether society should allow police to use such clips? I'm tired of getting whipsawed by you between those two issues.

Regulate ammo. Guns don't kill people ammo kills people.

See NRA? I can play your game.

Regulate ammo.

Who needs to regulate ammo? Just regulate gun powder.

This is a fun game.

You know David any muzzle loader up to large cannons are not legally consider firearms?

You are welcome to make your own gunpowder squirt. In fact, I suggest you do so in your own house and let your neighbors know you are doing it.

I am referring to Federal laws however most states just repeat the federal laws concerning how they define firearms.

Here is a link on the subject you might find interesting.

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/LegalFirearms.htm

I don 't carry it for security, being only 9mm.
I have it as an artifact of history.