Gun surprise: 2nd Amendment advocate says ban on high-capacity clips passes muster

[RamboLiberal]

A leading gun rights advocate says there is no constitutional barrier to restricting the sale of high-capacity gun magazines such as the one used by accused Tucson shooter Jared Loughner and that such proposals are justified to prevent “looney tunes” from committing more gun massacres.

Robert A. Levy, who served as co-counsel in the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case that established a Second Amendment right to bear arms, said there was no reason the court’s decision in that case should apply to the purchase of high-capacity gun magazines.

“I don’t see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines,” Levy said in an interview with NBC. “Justice (Antonin) Scalia made it quite clear some regulations are permitted. The Second Amendment is not absolute.”

The comments by Levy, chairman of the board of the libertarian Cato Institute, come as Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York is preparing to circulate a bill Thursday to ban the sale or transfer of high-capacity magazines. Supporters took Levy’s comments as a sign that at least one gun rights advocates might be open to the idea.

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/12/5824805-gun-surprise-2nd-amendment-advocate-says-ban-on-high-capacity-clips-passes-muster

[Arctic Dave]

1. Defining what one considers "high Capacity" will take a while.

Not trying to be funny but you can just about guarantee someone will sue not matter what the amount is.

[shadowrider]

4. Yup. Now comes defining what "high capacity" is

Will it be 30? 15? 10?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. I could live with the 'manufacturer intended capacity'

More or less what fits in the handgrip. 15+1 on my Springfield XD9.

[shadowrider]

19. I could too

10 + 1 in my Millenium

[AtheistCrusader]

20. 225 grain or smaller!

Don't crack your frame, like my wife did.

[shadowrider]

21. .40, 165 grain hollowpoint n/t

[YllwFvr]

22. so would my choice

to carry a subcompact 45 with a capacity of ten, and replace that with a factory magazine from a full sized 45 carrying 13 rounds be considered unreasonable?

[AtheistCrusader]

25. I can't think of any models where that would be possible.

Full sized .45's are usually double-stack, too wide for subcompact mag well.

[RSillsbee]

50. CZ75B (12 round mag) 2075 RAMI (8 round mag)

When I carry my RAMI I use a full size 75B magazine for a spare

[YllwFvr]

65. pretty much any small sized glock

will take upsized mags. When I had a glock 30, subcompact 45 acp, I had a few glock 21 mags, built for the full sized glock. Gave me three extra rounds. Carried with 10 rounds. Went to the range with 13. I am mostly familiar with glocks, so other will have to answer for other makes and models. springfield xd???

likewise the g26, with a 12 round mag, will take the 17 rounders from the glock 17 which is standard for that size. It all comes down to what would be unreasonable. I think claiming if it sticks beyond the grip its not ok, is unreasonable.

[Katya Mullethov]

32. a hundred seems fair

[Arctic Dave]

38. That would a belt not a magazine.

[Katya Mullethov]

45. Then that would be a loophole

Better get some people on that .

[spin]

80. What abut the 100 round magazine for a Thompson ?

Thompson 100 Round Black Drum For 45 ACP
Price: $605.99
Manufacturer: KAHR ARMS


http://www.impactguns.com/store/602686211048.html

[Arctic Dave]

84. Better take your finger to the gym. It's going to get a work out.

Unless its a full auto.

[one-eyed fat man]

92. There is still a problem.

The Kahr made drum will not fit on a "real" Thompson. The frame on the semi-auto version has some dimensional changes that prevent it from accepting "original" magazines. The lug on the magazine catch is different as well. Those are just some of the changes made to keep the semi-auto version from accepting any full-auto parts. While they look similar, they are NOT interchangeable. THIS is a real Thompson, Model of 1928. (tax paid and registered on an ATF Form 4)

[spin]

103. That's a beautiful firearm....

I had a fellow shooter who used a Thompson during WII. He landed in Normandy and fought his way across Europe. He said the Thompson was a great weapon for clearing houses.

[one-eyed fat man]

88. Funny you should mention that!

The 1994 ban included belts and links as ammunition feeding devices. The military was having logistical fits as links date coded after 9-94 were affected by the law. Would they have to be accounted for as a "controlled item" as possession of one by a civilian would constitute a felony?

Policing the brass and links is routine on military ranges. It get to be a real hassle on tank ranges where tank crews engage targets while moving at 30 or 40 miles an hour.

The 250 round belts for my Vickers made during WW2 already here were "grandfathered" but it became illegal to import any new ones during the ban.

[yellowcanine]

2. A flying pig just went past my window and there are rumors of a cold snap in hell.

[northoftheborder]

3. flying pig is right!

[wtmusic]

5. By that same logic, a complete ban on handguns passes muster

It's all in the interpretation.

[shadowrider]

6. Uh uh. I can see there is no constitutional right to a high capacity magazine

whatever that is, but the RIGHT to bear arms is protected. Apples and oranges.

[derby378]

9. And to what guns will this magazine ban be extended?

You can probably make some sort of argument against the "pistol-on-a-stick" like the Glock that Jared Loughner used, restricting pistol magazines to a capacity of 20 or so, but what about rifles that commonly use 30-round magazines as standard practice? Not to mention semi-auto Uzis and the like.

It's the NARAL argument all over again: Who Decides?

[shadowrider]

10. Yup. Who decides and what's the limit n/t

[wtmusic]

11. Who decides now?

There's always been a line in the sand.

[bossy22]

13. federal law

according to the NFA the legal limit is 100 rounds

[wtmusic]

14. Thanks nt

[X_Digger]

34. Actually no..

http://www.armatac.com/products.html

I wouldn't pay $400 for it, but it's for sale, no strings, no tax stamps..

[Travis_0004]

7. I don't care if it could pass the supreme court, right now, it can't pass congress

You simply are not getting a vote to limit magazine sizes in the next 2 years. Not with the congress how it is.

[wtmusic]

8. Agree. nt

[spin]

81. That's what counts. (n/t)

[GreenStormCloud]

24. That has already been ruled on - twice. You lose. N/T

[bossy22]

12. he's right on the core question

yes, magazine capacity limits are not inherently unconstitutional, but the question that needs to be asked (which is just as important) is what is the limit?

[The Second Stone]

15. The founding fathers did not anticipate repeating weapons

so under that logic only single shot rifles and double barrel shotguns are protected.

[Straw Man]

16. Google "Girandoni air rifle"...

...and then ask yourself why we don't limit the right of free speech to hand-set lead type and quill pens, seeing that the founding fathers didn't anticipate television or the Internet.

[wtmusic]

26. Cool. Another absolutist who approves of private ownership of nuclear weapons.

At least your screen name is honest. Cheers! :beer:

[bossy22]

28. thats a logical non-sequitor

how does merely pointing out that during the founders time there were repeating weapons equal support for owning nuclear weapons?

If i like to go to auto shows does that mean i support drunk driving?

[wtmusic]

30. Not at all.

Nuclear weapons are merely another type of arm. Please show me where A2 prohibits me from owning one (not holding breath)...

[Atypical Liberal]

60. Nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate, and generally crew-served weapons.

It is largely accepted that the second amendment applies to small arms appropriate for infantry use.

It is not largely accepted to include crew-served weaponry, nor explosives.

[wtmusic]

73. What is your "largely accepted" criteria based on? nt

[Atypical Liberal]

94. Decades of experience

I have used firearms for 30 years and have had this discussion countless times on countless forums and in person over that time.

In all that time I have never heard any pro-firearm person claim that nuclear weapons or crew-served weapons are protected under the second amendment.

I have, of course, heard lots of anti-firearm folks make that claim, but it is, of course, an absurdity.

[wtmusic]

96. Sounds like you believe that pretty much any weapon you can carry

on your person should be covered (bazookas, flamethrowers, RPGs, etc). Is that correct?

[Atypical Liberal]

101. Excluding explosives.

Sounds like you believe that pretty much any weapon you can carry on your person should be covered (bazookas, flamethrowers, RPGs, etc). Is that correct?

Basically any discriminatory man-portable weapon, yes.

Bazookas are not covered, as they are explosive devices, and non-discriminatory. Same with hand grenades, rocket propelled grenades or other explosive devices. Most pro-firearm people know that explosives are already regulated as "destructive devices" and are not covered by the second amendment. I've never heard anyone argue that they should be.

Flame throwers are already completely legal to buy and own with no paperwork. They are frequently used for starting controlled burns. I even saw one for sale at a gun show once. They are rather non-discriminatory, so I would not see them as covered under the second amendment, but obviously this has never been an issue. You probably won't find many people committing a crime with a flame thrower strapped to their back.

[wtmusic]

102. Hmm.

I don't agree that the discriminatory line begins at explosives.

A full-auto weapon in the hands of Jared Loughner could have killed hundreds of people, and very indiscriminately.

[Atypical Liberal]

105. Fully automatic weapons are highly regulated already.

A full-auto weapon in the hands of Jared Loughner could have killed hundreds of people, and very indiscriminately.

And this is why they are highly regulated already. By the law that Reagan signed, no fully-automatic weapon manufactured after 1986 can be transferred between civilians. This means the supply is finite, and no more will ever be available for civilian purchase. As a result, the starting price for any fully-automatic weapon is $3000. Most are in excess of $10,000.

http://www.autoweapons.com/products/products.html

In addition, special licenses and taxes apply before you can own a machine gun. The tax is $200, and you must undergo a comprehensive background check, including fingerprints, in order to get the license, which takes some months to get.

Personally I think machine guns are covered under the second amendment, and should not be so heavily regulated, but I am willing to compromise on this because machine guns are not likely to be very effective in any civilian military action. The reason is that machine guns are suppression weapons that are used to pin down an enemy until he can be flanked or until artillery or air strikes can be called in on the enemy position. No civilian military action is likely to be making use of those tactics.

Additionally, should armed rebellion ever come to be, military grade hardware can be appropriated as needed using the commonly available weaponry available to civilians.

[wtmusic]

106. To clarify:

Is regulation (not including an outright ban) of any "small arms appropriate for infantry use" a violation of the Second Amendment?

[Atypical Liberal]

107. Yes.

Is regulation (not including an outright ban) of any "small arms appropriate for infantry use" a violation of the Second Amendment?

In my opinion, yes. The amendment is quite clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Once we decide what "arms" are, the right to bear them can not be infringed.

In order to decide what kinds of arms the amendment is talking about, we need to do more research. Clearly the amendment is talking about arms appropriate for militia use, which means they are talking about arms appropriate for infantry use. Most people agree that this is about small arms, not explosives or crew-served weaponry, as I said before. Reading contemporary documents of the era corroborate this understanding. The intent was to have a decentralized military system whereby the people could serve as, or at least counter, federal military power. This implies that they would be similarly armed.

Now I personally am willing to bend the rules slightly, in that even though fully-automatic assault rifles are quite appropriate small arms for infantry forces, I think it's acceptable to regulate them. But that's about as far as I'm willing to go, and even that is probably a violation of the second amendment.

[wtmusic]

108. You've hit on the crux of the matter.

I don't shoot, in general I favor stricter control of handguns, and I gather you're coming from the opposite side of the table.

I "get" the reason why many gun enthusiasts see gun ownership as a protection against governmental abuses, and agree that protection is necessary.

Where we would disagree is to what extent A2 conflicts with the preamble's statement of purpose for the Constitution: to promote the general welfare. The reason is that pretty much any decision of what "arms" are can be gamed to include weapons which, because of modern technology, are powerful enough to cause indiscriminate destruction in the hands of a disaffected individual like Loughner.

The trend has been towards more power, and there's no reason to think it won't continue.

btw, thanks for your civil discourse.

[Atypical Liberal]

109. You're welcome.

Where we would disagree is to what extent A2 conflicts with the preamble's statement of purpose for the Constitution: to promote the general welfare. The reason is that pretty much any decision of what "arms" are can be gamed to include weapons which, because of modern technology, are powerful enough to cause indiscriminate destruction in the hands of a disaffected individual like Loughner.

My take on this is this: The Bill of Rights, and indeed the entire Constitution, is framed not as a list of what citizens are allowed to do, but rather what the federal government is not allowed to do. Thus any provision for the government cannot violate another part of the Constitution. The Congress is empowered in the Preamble and the Spending and Taxation clauses to provide for the General Welfare. But I do not think it can not do this in violation of other parts of the Constitution. If it could, the General Welfare clause could be used to contravene any part of the Constitution.

According to Wikipedia, in the US Constitution the Taxation and Spending clause is considered the only General Welfare clause of the document. In that light, it seems clear to me that Congress is authorized to tax and spend in the name of the General Welfare. This does not mean that it is also empowered to restrict other Constitutional rights in the name of the General Welfare.

The trend has been towards more power, and there's no reason to think it won't continue.

I agree with you, and I have pondered this often over the years. What will happen when the next revolution in infantry small arms comes along? Suppose a device is invented that fires an energy beam of some kind, with a compact power source that allows it to fire hundreds or thousands of shots before becoming depleted. Will such weapons be allowed in civilian hands? I suspect not. But if they are what the common infantryman is issued, they should be, according to my understanding of the intent of the Constitution.

btw, thanks for your civil discourse.

You're welcome. Thank you likewise.

[one-eyed fat man]

111. Where do you draw the line?

One of the flaws of a free society is that even if we are willing to accept outrages like the secret warrant-less wire-taps, Bush Obama "No fly lists" or the "security theater" of TSA goons every time we fly that there will still be people who find opportunity commit evil. What sense does it make to throw away freedoms under the illusion we are keeping the evil-doers from suborning it?

So what are our options? Do we do like the East Germans did?

The MfS monitored political behavior among GDR citizens, and is known to have used torture and intimidation to mute dissent. During the Peaceful Revolution of 1989, MfS offices were overrun by enraged citizens, but not before the MfS destroyed a number of documents (approximately 5%). When the remaining files were published for review, many people learned that their friends, colleagues, spouses, and relatives had regularly filed reports with the MfS. These wounds on society have not yet entirely healed.

It turned out that one in every seven East Germans was an informant for the State Security apparatus. Amazingly, despite that level of scrutiny people were able to escape. As oppressive and as overwhelming as it was, it still wasn't 100% effective.

[Straw Man]

62. Bill of Rights?

Nuclear weapons are merely another type of arm. Please show me where A2 prohibits me from owning one (not holding breath)..

It's the Bill or Rights, not the Bill of Prohibitions.

The standard usage of "arms" (as distinct from "ordinance") was weapons such as may be carried by an individual "in defense of himself and the State" (which is actually from a state constitution, not sure which). I would submit to you that a nuclear weapon is spectacularly unsuitable for the defense of oneself. The State, perhaps, but then how do we deal with the "keep and bear" part? No individual would be able to strategically deploy such a weapon.

No, I'm not an absolutist. I do not believe that nuclear weapons should be possessed by private citizens. The threat to public safety is simply too great. You apparently think that repeating firearms pose a threat that is equally great. I do not agree.

I believe that the intention of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the right of individuals to possess standard infantry weapons. In their time, it would have been the flintlock rifle or musket. In ours it would be select-fire (auto or semi-auto) rifles and semi-automatic handguns. We already have tight regulation of select-fire weapons: a compromise. How much further would you go?

I find it ironic that you claim that anything beyond flintlocks is tantamount to nukes, yet you call me an absolutist.

[wtmusic]

67. Your conclusion is unfounded

The fact that I think nuclear weapons present too great a threat to public safety does not imply I believe repeating firearms present an equal threat - it means that I believe repeating firearms also pose too great a threat to public safety, albeit a lesser one than nukes.

Your "standard definition" is something which you apparently made up (google the "arms race", and note what it's in reference to). As is your arbitrary designation that arms refer to something that may be carried by an individual.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours has no more basis in the Constitution than mine does.

[Straw Man]

83. equally great = too great to be permitted

The fact that I think nuclear weapons present too great a threat to public safety does not imply I believe repeating firearms present an equal threat - it means that I believe repeating firearms also pose too great a threat to public safety, albeit a lesser one than nukes.

Yes, I understand that you realize a Glock pistol cannot kill level a city in seconds, killing millions. Give me the credit for giving you that much credit. You do believe, however, that they are too dangerous to be permitted in society. I don't share that belief.

Your "standard definition" is something which you apparently made up (google the "arms race", and note what it's in reference to). As is your arbitrary designation that arms refer to something that may be carried by an individual.

I suggest you spend more time reading history and Constitutional scholarship, and less on Googling single words:

“...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” --Tench Coxe

"That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes..." --Laurence Tribe

The sense is clear. Colonial households did not typically contain cannon.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours has no more basis in the Constitution than mine does.

I think I just demonstrated that it does.

[wtmusic]

85. Could I seen links to your quotes please?

I believe you, I'd like to read them in context.

[Straw Man]

99. Context

I don't think the full text of either document is available online. The Tribe quote is from his textbook. A slightly larger excerpt:

Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law 902 n. 221 (2000): "Perhaps the most accurate conclusion one can reach with any confidence is that the core meaning of the Second Amendment is a populist / republican / federalism one: Its central object is to arm 'We the People' so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes -- not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons -- a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by <Section> 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action."

--http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

The Coxe quote in larger context:

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

"Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

--https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ghcfMfrDKkQJ:www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/cox.PDF (pg. 16)

[wtmusic]

100. Thanks nt

[Straw Man]

110. You're welcome. nt

[Euromutt]

89. Just try *bearing* a nuclear warhead

A W-80 warhead, designed to be used in air-launched and ship-launched cruise missiles (ALCM and BGM-109 Tomahawk, resp.), weighs 290 lbs.
The Mk-54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition weighed 163 lbs--admittedly including carrying case, but if we're talking about bearing arms that should be included--and that's about as light a nuclear weapon as anyone's ever managed to make, but as a result, the maximum yield was 1 kiloton. And it's still not something you're routinely going to lug around all day, nor was it intended to be.

Strictly speaking, the 2nd Amendment doesn't prohibit you from owning one (the Bill of Rights doesn't prohibit citizens from doing anything, it prohibits the government), but there's a reasonable case to be made that any weapon system that cannot be borne by an individual isn't covered by "the right to keep and bear arms."

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. It's Girandoni, not Fermi. And they *were* in common use in the 18th Century

Right alongside the muskets and flintlocks the 'originalists' are so fond of.

[wtmusic]

69. Your interpretation would be, then, that only types of arms available at the time

of the writing of the Constitution are validated by the Second Amendment?

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. No, but if you want to use the Girandoni as a model of acceptability, go ahead

Some of those calling for bans on certain weapon types might have a problem with it, though.


It would shoot 120 .50 caliber lead balls with the muzzle energy of .45 ACP bullets before it needed to be reloaded.

The Austrian Army quit using them because circa-1800 materials technology simply wasn't up to snuff, so they were unreliable.



I daresay a modern replica, made with high quality materials would be a very formidable weapon. In another

thread, I described it as "the paintball gun from Hell."


But even under Massachusetts' strict laws, it's still just an air rifle- anybody with an FID card could buy one.

And all acceptable to the "muskets and flintlocks" types- if they mean what they've been saying...

[bossy22]

17. but thats not the logic that is used in constitutional decisions

by that same logic, the only speech that is protected is that of spoken word and quill/paper only. Also it means the government can freely tap your phone lines without a warrant because phones could never be concieved by the founders

Secondly, in the time of the founders, work was already progressing on repeating firearms and if you look through old patent records, you will see quite a few working designs. IIRC correctly the earliest "gattling gun" was patented in the late 18th century.

[wtmusic]

29. That "quill" meme must have popped right off the NRA website...it's everywhere.

You believe that any arms are included in your 2nd Amendment rights?

Rocket launchers? Nuclear weapons? :shrug:

[bossy22]

31. No I do not

[wtmusic]

33. I don't either.

That's where gun control kicks in, and despite strong opinions from both sides some kind of decision must be reached.

[bossy22]

37. I think the decision has been reached

We allow weapons that are suitable for sport and protection

[wtmusic]

39. Constantly in flux

Is a 100-round magazine "suitable for sport and protection"? :shrug:

[X_Digger]

40. 150 is..

http://www.armatac.com/products.html

[wtmusic]

47. Why not 200? 500? Full Auto? nt

[X_Digger]

48. Too heavy to lift.. but you know that full auto isn't illegal, right?

Just heavily regulated.

[wtmusic]

49. Should it even be regulated?

The Glock 18 would be a very effective defensive weapon.

[X_Digger]

55. Ehn.. I don't have a problem with NFA, other than supressors.

They're sold over the counter in much of europe.

[wtmusic]

66. What about GCA? nt

[X_Digger]

68. I agree with the 'prohibited persons' language.

I'm glad they removed the 'mail order ammo' restriction- even more relevant with online shopping.

[wtmusic]

71. What about the national background check of the Brady Act?

Not being facetious, honestly trying to learn something here. Thanks for your responses.

[X_Digger]

75. If instant, and from a FFL, fine.

I don't agree with waiting periods. The period between 1994-1998 was studied (the time after the background check was instituted and before NICS came online when there was a waiting period), and President Clinton's DOJ could find no indication that they decreased crime or suicide.

I wouldn't mind a way for private citizens to run an NICS check on each other, but it could be abused. I can't get behind requiring it for private sales, or making them go through a dealer, that could be abused and become a de facto registration system.

They don't apply to me anyway, my Texas CHL serves in lieu of an NICS background check.

[RSillsbee]

53. Full auto IS legal

but you have to jump through more hoops than a dog show to own one

[X_Digger]

56. yah, that's why I said, isn't illegal, just heavily regulated..

[RSillsbee]

58. My bad

I read "you know full auto is illegal right?" sorry.

[NewMoonTherian]

70. Why not, indeed?

If anyone in Congress brings up the idea of deregulating full autos, they'll have secured my vote for the rest of their career, if I can vote for them.

[wtmusic]

74. Why do you put so much value on seeing full autos deregulated? nt

[NewMoonTherian]

87. Currently...

it's the most grievously unjust federal gun law, in my opinion. If we were ever to succeed in doing away with the registry and making full-autos as easy to accquire as all other types, I would start working to strike down the next most grievous gun law. Incrementalism worked for gun control; I'm spitefully hoping to adopt the tactic for gun rights.

And for clarity, I should have said "machine gun," so as to include SBR's, silencers and such. It's only in response to others specifically remarking on full-autos that I did the same. Does the same law that restricts machine guns also effect large calibers? If not, that might be the next challenge to undertake.

(Edited, I thought someone else had posted and made a comment addressed to them.)

[wtmusic]

95. Do you really think that any kind of gun regulation is a bad idea? nt

[NewMoonTherian]

112. Certainly not.

I can deal with NICS, and I want to find a way to make sure provably mentally unstable people are included in the database. I also want to see harsher penalties for people who commit crimes using guns(someone suggested what seems like a good structure for this in a recent thread. I can dig it up if you'd like to peruse it). I'm sure I could come up with several other things on which we could work together.

On the other hand, I have a wishlist of useless and abusive regulations I'd like to see done away with, and many more laws have been proposed that would result in more abuse, or are abuse in their own right. When a law is proposed, the burden should be on its proponents to show evidence that it addresses a real problem, and that it will help solve the problem without causing undue harm. When a law does pass, it should be subject to intense scrutiny to determine whether it is effective and, if not(e.g. the AWB, the machine gun registry), it should be repealed.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. Rocket launchers are legal, it is the rockets that are controlled.

A rocket launcher can be as simple as a rope strung between two trees, or an empty pipe. Hard to outlaw those.

Basically, the 2A applies to weapons the individual can use for self-defense. You can't do that with a nuke. Posters who try to use the nuke argument to invalidate the 2A show that they aren't really serious about discussion, but just want to ban guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. By all means, feel free to discontinue using the "muskets and flintlocks" meme, then.

Or you might explain your double standards regarding the two amendments.

[RSillsbee]

51. The founders did not anticipate the internet

We'll be happy to accept your posts by pony express, on parchment, written w/ quill and ink

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. Log off and start using a quill pen to express your opinions.

If it applies to the Second Amendment, should it not also apply to the First?

[NewMoonTherian]

72. Now, to be fair...

they could also use movable type printing presses as well. Just no motor vehicles to distribute their publications.

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. Or a semaphore line. I'm down with modern technology...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_line

Semaphore line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A semaphore telegraph, optical telegraph, shutter telegraph chain, Chappe telegraph, or Napoleonic semaphore is a system of conveying information by means of visual signals, using towers with pivoting shutters, also known as blades or paddles. Information is encoded by the position of the mechanical elements; it is read when the shutter is in a fixed position. These systems were popular in the late 18th to early 19th century. In modern usage, "semaphore line" and "optical telegraph" may refer to a relay system using flag semaphore.

Semaphore lines were a precursor of the electrical telegraph. They were far faster than post riders for bringing a message over long distances, but far more expensive and less private than the electrical telegraph lines which would replace them. The distance that an optical telegraph can bridge is limited by geography and weather; thus, in practical use, most optical telegraphs used lines of relay stations to bridge longer distances....

[guitar man]

64. Try again

Repeating weapons already existed. The original "six shooter" was a 6 chambered wheel lock revolver dating all the way back to 1590. It had a manually rotated cylinder. Crude, but it was indeed a repeating firearm.

The Founding Fathers were not frozen in time. They were fully aware of ever advancing weapons technology and indeed saw that technology advancing in their own lifetimes.

edited to add pic:

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. That *has* to be a fake! Gun control experts have assured us so.

The Gun Guys, Joyce Foundation grantees who got cut off last year, claimed that repeating handguns weren't around til the Civil War.

From the Google cache, as their site ceased to be updated in August:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dz8Fnk52-78J:www.gunguys.com/%3Fp%3D1966+%22did+not+exist%22+site:www.gunguys.com&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

...Handguns– as we know them– did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, until the forerunner of the modern handgun became mass marketed after the Civil War. So how can they have been protected under the Second Amendment when they didn’t exist at the time?...

And gun prohibitionists wonder why we doubt their sincerity....

[guitar man]

77. 6 shot flintlock

6 shot flintlock Spanish sword/revolver, circa 1620

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_sword

edit to fix link

[guitar man]

82. puckle gun 1718

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Puckle

[Euromutt]

90. Nock volley gun, 1779

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nock_gun
Seven barrels, each loaded with a .50-cal pistol ball. Admittedly, they did all fire at the same time, rather than in succession, but we're still talking about putting out 7 rounds in short order.

[NewMoonTherian]

86. Are you sure that's a wheel lock?

It appears to be a flintlock(though I may be all wet on that). Is this a depiction of a slightly later model?

[guitar man]

97. yes

You can see the wheel and the shaft where you put the winding spanner to cock it. I haven't found a lot of info about it on the net but somewhere in my attic I have a book that went into a little more detail about it.

[NewMoonTherian]

113. Thanks for edifying me. It's a terribly interesting piece of hardware. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

23. 258 Members of the House have an NRA "A" rating.

The House has 435 members. 258 is well over half. 217.5 would be half. IOW - 258 members of the House agree with the NRA. The NRA own the House. Any gun-control legislation will die in committe.

Further, such bans would be useless. Both the Luby's killer and the Virginia Tech killer reloaded, and weren't stopped. Or such a killer could also bring a second gun.

[bossy22]

27. quick question

where did you find that information- im not questioning its accuracy i just want to figure out how many A's and B's are in congress

[GreenStormCloud]

35. NRA website. But you have to be a member to get the ratings. N/T

[onehandle]

41. Proving that the gun lobby has far too much control over our elected officials. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

42. Those 258 members were ELECTED by the voters.

They express the will of the people. That you don't like that will is obvious.

[onehandle]

43. Well, I love Republicans as much as any member of DEMOCRATIC Underground...

...but I was talking about Lobbyists

They're not so popular.

[bossy22]

46. what is so wrong with lobbyists?

[Atypical Liberal]

61. I'm happy to contribute.

I'm happy to pay my NRA dues to help secure that control.

[beevul]

63. Thats a veiled way of saying...

Thats a veiled way of saying that the anti-gun lobby has far too little control over our elected officials.


Isn't that really what you mean?

[beevul]

44. That doesn't really matter.

It ain't gonna happen.

No footholds for the bradys, now or ever.

They made clear during the AWB that its never enough. The laundry list of restriction they want is never ending one.

A thirty round mag ban tomorrow turns into a 20 round ban in x years, and then a 15 x years after that, then ten, and on and on.


Support for a thirty round ban is an enabler for what is guaranteed to follow.


Sorry, but I'm not having any.

[lawodevolution]

52. I don't care what this guy said.

The 2A does protect firearms, bullets and anything necessary to operate the firearm like magazines and I will retain the ability to buy new high cap magazines whenever I care to.

[Euromutt]

91. The problematic thing about a legal opinion is...

...that you can, practically by definition, find another lawyer to argue the opposite. Welcome to the adversarial system.

I do note that the article omits to mention for whom Levy was co-counsel in Heller. Yes, he was co-counsel for Heller, not the District, but it would have been good to make that clear.

[benEzra]

93. Then you'd need to apply the "in common use for lawful purposes" test

elucidated by the Court. Given that the standard capacity of the most popular civilian rifles in the United States is 30 rounds, and the standard capacity of full-size civilian defensive pistols is 13 to 20 rounds, a 10-round limit (as the gun-control lobby wants) would be unreasonable on its face.

When the Bradyites wish to cap magazine capacity at 30-ish instead of turning the clock back to the 1860's with their ridiculous 10-round limit, let me know.

[YllwFvr]

98. I did some poking around

and honestly I dont think high cap mags make any difference. Cho, the VT shooter, reloaded 17 times. Capacity means nothing.

[spin]

104. The shooters keep trying to explain this ...

an experienced shooter can swap a magazine in one second. Extended magazines are also not as reliable and often cause jams.

For some reason many people seem to believe that all we have to do to stop more massacre is to limit magazine size. Cho proved that was not the answer.

The problem is that we have politicians who feel they have to show their voters that they are doing something to solve problems. That's why you get "feel good" laws. The sad part is that the politicians that write these laws also no that they will accomplish little or nothing.