Walk Up, Not Out

[Robert]

I am waiting on responses to my questions.

[Jazman]

I actually don't know exactly what I think the policy should be for AR-15s, but when I ask what the justification is for saying that everyday citizens need AR-15s with high-capacity magazines, that's a conversation some people seem to want to avoid.

Not sure if it is you or me, but I have been less irritated with the discussions here. I can not speak for others. Only myself.

I know you're asking for Boots answers, but in the meantime I'll answer some of your questions.

Do you think the lever action rifle I showed fast shooting should be regulated too? It carries as many cartridges as the AR-15.

Yes, especially if it's rigged with a large magazine. Maybe not if it's only available with small magazines for hunting and sport shooting.

Do you think the pistol I showed should be regulated since it can fire as fast and as many shots as the AR-15?

Yes. I agree with numerous other gun accountability groups that handguns are probably the biggest problem and should be much more regulated. They are the easy route to many accidental shootings and suicides.

Do you think the guy with the bow and arrow would be just as lethal as a gun?

Yes, but very few people will spend their lives practicing like he does or ever reaching his lethal ability. I would rejoice and the saints would too if all we had was bow and arrows... Any of the mass killers in the past decade would have had to practice day and night for years and years to get as lethal with a bow and arrow and even then I doubt they could have killed as many people as they did. Adam Lanza? A bow and a handful of arrows? Really?

Illinois and Mass cities just passed some strong restrictions and the Illinois town has given people 60 days to turn in their "assault" weapons and high capacity cartridges. Do you think these restrict legal citizen rights and will criminals obey these laws?

No and probably not... but now there's some more laws on the books that a prosecutor can nail them with when they do get caught - still more of a deterrent than before. Still worth it. Crime has fallen btw, in many cities, like NYC, because of new or tweaked laws. Better than the fatalism of, "criminals will do what they do, no matter what"

The videos I showed of the quick draw are a group of people who train and compete. Should this practice be outlawed or restricted? If so why?

[/quote]Yes, unless you have proof of training and participation in a club, or team that competes in such a official contest. Why not? Only trained, qualified drivers get to drive and race in F1 cars. I can't, you can't, most can't. Oh, my male ego would love to try, but I know I'd make a hash of it and the experts would be to blame for letting me try. There's many things like this. I'm glad I'm prohibited from many things like this... - it saves lives. I pray to God, that someday, in america, guns can be brought under a similar kind of accountability and regulation.

[ken_sylvania]

There is no constitutional argument against the things that the Parkland students are asking for or the laws passed in Illinois or Massachusetts. Here's Justice Scalia's Heller decision:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

This was considered a breakthrough for the NRA at the time because it said that every citizen must be allowed to have a handgun, if he has a license and registers the gun. It clearly says that licenses and registration can be required, the kinds of guns allowed can be limited to those commonly used to defend self, family, and property, there can be limitations on felons and the mentally ill, there can be limitations on where guns can be carried, etc.

Um..., no. It clearly says that the decision does not address whether a licensing requirement would pass muster. Heller wasn't arguing that the requirement for a license was unconstitutional, and therefore the court didn't address the issue.

[Robert]

Yes, especially if it's rigged with a large magazine.

A level action rifle has no removable magazine. It has a fixed magazine that can hold 10-15 rounds. It has been a while since I used one, so those numbers may be off a bit.

It was the preferred type of rifle for a while in the US back in the late 1800's and early 1900's. It would have been like an assault weapon in that time, yet it can not fire any faster than any semi automatic deer rifle today. No deadlier or faster than a deer rifle. An AR-15 is not faster or deadlier than a level action rifle.

Yes. I agree with numerous other gun accountability groups that handguns are probably the biggest problem and should be much more regulated. They are the easy route to many accidental shootings and suicides.

Handguns cause many more deaths than rifles of all kinds combined. A pistol will fire as fast as an AR-15. It sounds as though you would like to ban them also. How do you get around the 2nd Amendment to do that?

Any of the mass killers in the past decade would have had to practice day and night for years and years to get as lethal with a bow and arrow and even then I doubt they could have killed as many people as they did.

First, it takes a good bit of practice to become proficient with a rifle. One does not just pick it up and use it as a well trained machine.

Second, study history. Look into the Huns. They killed hundreds of thousands with just bows and arrows. They were quite proficient, even from horseback. If guns were gone, people would become proficient with them again, quite easily. The challenge with a bow and arrow is it is very quiet and hard to figure a direction of a shooter. Much easier for someone to take out a large number of people before anyone would realize what is happening.

now there's some more laws on the books that a prosecutor can nail them with when they do get caught - still more of a deterrent than before

I suspect you do not see the same connection, but if this is allowed, then what stops a town from outlawing certain religions, like Anabaptism? They could see it as harmful sine we will not serve in the military or Police force. "You don't help/serve, then you are not allowed to stay."

Yes, unless you have proof of training and participation in a club, or team that competes in such a official contest. Why not?

Because the right to practice religion, or even the right to free press could be curtailed using these precedents. How does a group of people shooting targets harm others? If it is not, why should their rights be taken? Does a group of Anabaptists practicing their faith harm anyone? If not, then why should their rights be taken away? IF you think it can not happen, then study WW1 history on COs. Some were imprisoned and beaten for not serving. Once drafted some were locked up and treated pretty bad.

We have to learn not to look at crises at the moment, but through the lens of history. I felt everyone overreacted to 9/11. Are we doing the same with these school shootings? I fear we are. When we overreact, humanity has always overdone the control it tries to apply to curb certain actions.

Lastly about fully automatic weapons. Even the military only uses them in certain situations because they are not very effective. Military grade rifles have a single shot and 3 shot burst. They have found that this is much more effective and does not waste ammo. Anyone who has shot a full automatic from a standing position will tell you you can not control it well or aim.

Again, if the AR-15 is totally removed from society, a person wanting to harm another person will just use the next weapon available which would be just as effective, even a bow, sword, or knife. Poison and bombs have been and will be used also.

[Josh]

Once the 2nd amendment goes, the 1st is next.
I’m surprise the people crowing about religious freedom can’t see this.

Those who think no guns make some kind of paradise should move to the wrong end of London, or the south side of Chicago, or northwest Melbourne. Or DC. As usual, the last time I drove thru DC I heard gunshots in the distance in broad daylight. DC is a place where guns are very illegal to shoot and very difficult to get a licence to own.

The excuses the gun control crowd will have is “well that’s the fault of law abiding gun owners”.

[temporal1]

Once the 2nd amendment goes, the 1st is next.
I’m surprise the people crowing about religious freedom can’t see this.

Those who think no guns make some kind of paradise should move to the wrong end of London, or the south side of Chicago, or northwest Melbourne. Or DC. As usual, the last time I drove thru DC I heard gunshots in the distance in broad daylight. DC is a place where guns are very illegal to shoot and very difficult to get a licence to own.

The excuses the gun control crowd will have is “well that’s the fault of law abiding gun owners”.

London’s spike in stabbings.

Mayor Khan, “There is never a reason to carry a knife” ..
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/08 ... knife.html

[Robert]

I actually don't know exactly what I think the policy should be for AR-15s, but when I ask what the justification is for saying that everyday citizens need AR-15s with high-capacity magazines, that's a conversation some people seem to want to avoid.

Do you think the lever action rifle I showed fast shooting should be regulated too? It carries as many cartridges as the AR-15.

Do you think the pistol I showed should be regulated since it can fire as fast and as many shots as the AR-15?

Do you think the guy with the bow and arrow would be just as lethal as a gun?

Illinois and Mass cities just passed some strong restrictions and the Illinois town has given people 60 days to turn in their "assault" weapons and high capacity cartridges. Do you think these restrict legal citizen rights and will criminals obey these laws?

The videos I showed of the quick draw are a group of people who train and compete. Should this practice be outlawed or restricted? If so why?

Still waiting for Bootstrap to respond to these questions.

[Bootstrap]

Still waiting for Bootstrap to respond to these questions.

I did, actually.

http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... 170#p31785

My biggest issue is not really specific policy as much as the political tribesmanship. I will say something about the AR-15 in the next post, but my main point is that the AR-15 is the weapon being used in these shootings, and it is definitely up for discussion if we want to talk about this issue at all.

There will always be gray area. If you really want to discuss specific weapons, I could create a thread on the AR-15 and we could start there. But as I have said, I don't have a firm position yet, if you do, we could discuss your position and people could help me get a more accurate understanding of AR-15's.

I'm more interested in this thread:

http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1202

The rest is really commentary. I don't know exactly what I think the right gun policies are, so if you give me a list of very specific questions about particular weapons, I will mostly tell you that's exactly the kind of thing that voters need to figure out. Democracy is messy. People have different feelings and understandings. There must be room for people with many views to be part of the discussion. The rights in the Second Amendment must be protected unless it is repealed.

I'll answer some of the more specific questions in the next post, but I want to be clear that I do not have a specific political platform that I am promoting. I mostly think that we need to question the narratives being fed to us by the political tribes.

You seem to want me to spell out exactly what policy people should agree on. I would actually prefer that experts hash this out and make proposals that I can vote on. And given the hundreds of possible weapons we could decide to discuss, it would be very distracting from what I am actually saying.

Why force me to take specific positions on specific weapons when I am simply saying this kind of thing should be up for discussion? Why not respond to what I said in response to you instead?

[Josh]

I think the issue is that you want to talk about how AR-15s should be banned, yet you don't even understand what an AR-15 is.

In my own church conference, AR-15s and AK-47s have been discouraged, and we recently issued guidelines that they are not to be permitted at all and a brother who does so will not be considered to be a conscientious objector. I'm not sure if things could get more strict than that. But part of being able to do that is that, in our conference, we do understand what an AR-15, an AK-47, or "something similar" is. It is a gun with a military style appearance.

That's something a spiritual community can determine and where there are boundaries for grace.

But when it comes to law, if owning an AR-15 means I go to jail for 20 years, you need to understand what an AR-15 actually is. Boot, let's say you get your magic law banning AR-15s, you're a cop, and you come to my house and see this:



Do you plan to lock me up for 20 years, or am I innocent?

[Robert]

I'll answer some of the more specific questions in the next post, but I want to be clear that I do not have a specific political platform that I am promoting. I mostly think that we need to question the narratives being fed to us by the political tribes.

I did, actually.

You did not answer the specific questions. I am interested in hearing your answers to these specific questions. I am not doing a gothca thing. I am wondering how you process these.