Carroll, I believe it's againist the law to use a semi auto for hunting in PA. Government and the bad guys should not be the only ones able to pocess a gun. We the people have a right to defend ourselves with the same guns government and the bad guys use. There are limitations on the number of rounds a gun can have the moive shooter reportedly had a after market 100 round mag which was good because the rifle he was using kept jamming. Suggestion PLACE A SIGN IN YOUR YARD THAT SAYS.. THIS HOUSE IS A GUN FREE ZONE. good day

The second amendment has limits, we all agree on this. You can't own an automated assault rifle. The question then becomes "where do we draw the line?" It's a very tough question, considering at the time the bill of rights was written, the same weapon the military used was the weapon hunters used. For me, personally no one needs assault rifles, extended clips, or armor piercing rounds. These are overkill to an extreme for self protection and have no place.

Carroll, You really need to educate yourself a little more about firearms, hunting regulations and firearms legislation before you sound off.
Please research Remington 11-87, Browning Auto 5 or Beretta A-400.
Also, don't always believe what the news media tells you of what's bad.
Again educate yourself... I invite you to attend a hunter's safety course, a firearms, safety course or a local sportsman's shoot.

They are limits on the abuse of the right, not the lawful exercise thereof and that is where you einsteins need to fix your unenlightened view.

Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 ruled 8-1 that no felon is legally obligated to follow any law that requires them to violate their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, making 85% of the existing 20,000 gun control laws not applicable to felons.

It is a BOR of rights, not a bill of needs based upon the scared of the boogey man irrational unsubstantiated fears of the unkowledgable.

The first amendment protection of the pathological lie that gun control reduces violence should indeed be removed.

Golly Mike, be careful about bad mouthing the NRA. The Congress certainly is, they dare not make a move without the approval of this band of patriots. The writers of the 2nd amendment wanted to be sure of your right to own a musket because that's what the government would use to come for you. They did not foresee Gatling. The NRA wants you to have the right to mount an anti-tank weapon on your front lawn.

Mike, have you ever read an NRA periodical, attended an NRA sanctioned shoot or participated in an NRA approved firearms safety course?
Or do you just regurgitate rhetoric about the NRA that is spewed by anti-gunners like Brady or HCI?
Have you ever read about "Eddie the Eagle Safety Program" or even know of it's existence?
I invite you to attend an NRA shoot or safety course. I think you'll find out that these people are not evil monsters that your friends at Brady and HCI say we are.
God Bless...

I am well aware of what the NRA does. The NRA does a fantastic job when it comes to safety, education and the proper care and use of guns.

It is the political views of their current leadership that I was criticizing.

Hey Mikey..do you know what they call people who think like you??? VICTMS

Here is a simple solution if you dont like the legislative wing of the NRA.

Wave you magic wand, and make George Soros and his cabal of anti gun billionaires disappear, and the massive majority of funding for the anti gun movement will disappear overnight.

Without that funding, the anti gun movement collapses/is severely cripples as that is all they have left to sponsor their litanty of perpetual pathological lying that gun control reduces violence.

With this, JR, I agree. (At least the enforcement part of your comment.)

Jeff, according to your argument we do not need laws against theft because criminals will steal anyway. And could you provide a source for Australia and the UK - and what kind of crimes "soared"? We were also a little short on some laws here and the nation got screwed. An AK 47 would not have protected us from the banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions.

Jeff, the US population is 14 times greater than Australia. The US firearm homicide rate is 472 times greater than Australia. GB and AU are far safer places to live because access to firearms, both legally and illegally is much more difficult and there is no 'gun culture' like there is here.
The NRA fear mongering propaganda that you have read is pure lies.

Keith, Keith, Keith, violence is violence is violence.

Firearms are inanimate objects, incapable of creating violence by themselves.

Those that believe that are for the most part locked away for being the loveable schizophrenics they are ( must hear voices and obey).

Then again even the FBI shows that of the 1.26 mil violent crimes committed, only around 370k involved a firearm. I thought firearms were the root cause of all violence eh?

Oh whats this, 3 countries who banned or implemented super strict gun control in 1997.

Australia, Canada, England.

Australia 1997 629 VCR per 100k 2007 1,024 VCR per 100k, a 32 person reduction in murders by firearms, exactly replaced by murders with knives. Trend was mirrored in England http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/facts.aspx

Canada 1997 980 VCR per 100k people 2009 1,324 VCR per 100k people, murder rose from 560 to 610 (Ref Statcan) http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/subject-sujet/subtheme-soustheme.action;jsessionid=8D2AA1C6360138D81357F63393EC6C97?pid=2693&id=2102&lang=eng&more=0

Canada $2 billion dollar plus registry, hasn’t solved one crime.

England 1997 820 VCR per 100k people 2009 1,667 VCR per 100k people, murders have reduced to 1997 levels after a 25% increase. (ref Home Office UK) http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/

CONT

So much for less guns in law abiding gun owners hands equals less violence, a trend found in every single gun ban country, prove otherwise. Oh, use government data to try if you want, the above references ARE their government databases.

Oh whats this...

We see from US Census, and an average of NSSF & PEW surveys, that in 2009 40% of households have a firearm. That is an increase since 1997 of 9 million households to 80 million law abiding gun owners as recognized by the BATF.

Even the Brady Bunch admits 4.5 mil new firearms in civilian hands each year.

We see that since 1997 per FBI UCR, that violent crime has gone from 611 VCR (Violent Crime Reported) per 100k people to 429 VCR per 100k people in 2009.

That is a 38% reduction in violent crime. Did we forget to mention that the same data shows a 26% reduction in murders?

All while at the same time we see 16 more states reinstated concealed carry to 49 states total, and 35 states reinstated concealed carry in eateries that serve alcohol. 4 states and 200+ universities reinstated concealed carry, and 30 plus states reinstate self defense outside the home.

All without the predicted and much cried about blood baths predicted by such pundits suggests for oh what, something like the millionth time, yep.

So much for more guns in law abiding gun owners hands equals more crimes BS people like Keith like to have you believe.

So Keith is now going to prove to everyone that a violent crime rate of 1,024 per 100k people is safer than 429 per 100k people.

Oh wait, since Australia has a population of around 28 mil, lets calculate this out of they had the same population (312 mil) as the US.

312 MIL/28 MIL = 11.14 X the number of violent crimes in Australia= 3.12 mil violent crimes reported versus 1.26 mil violent crimes reported in the US.

So explain again how a country where you are over 2 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime than a person living in the US, is safer, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO.

The NRA didnt make the ratio and violent crime rate rules, the FBI UCR does.

The NRA didnt collect the data the Australian & US government did.

But hey, since the US government acknowledges that career criminals/gang members and suiciders combined commit over 92% of illegal killings with a firearm, exactly why are you inferring the NRA or 80 mil law abiding gun onwers have a heck of a lot to do with all that violence?

I don't necessarily like it, but our constitution says and our highest court has affirmed many times that people have a right to own guns with a relatively narrow set of exceptions. Fighting the 2nd amendment has been useless and has only given people a reason to donate money to the NRA. If it were my choice, I'd have the Democrats give up on the issue completely because they won't make any progress.
With that being said, in an ideal world where people are rational, there are some laws that could reduce gun violence. Mandating that people report lost or stolen guns would be a good start. People shouldn't be able to sell their gun on the street and then tell police they just lost that gun when it shows up two years later in a shooting.

With all due respect, Billy....Jesus was never the victim of a home invasion by a drug crazed criminal, who knows that you are home, but is coming in anyways.

Honestly, the best deterrent is a big dog and a pump shotgun.

Matt. 10:34, Jesus said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." and Luke 22:36: "He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

Yes he did but how many are now really paying attention besides dutifully going to church (or synagogue or mosque)? We have an ex governor out there who did a fine "Christian" number on a lot of working people and is eager to do more but all the while being careful to pay his tithes.

not a gun issue...it's a mental health issue.

We see the result of when no one had one, rather bad.

Or are you inferring that those who defend themselves are such horrific shots they would have shot and injured more than the bad guy?

Lets review the following 10 mass shootings, and note what the body counts were where resistance occurred versus no resistance.

October 16, 1991, Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured.
April 20, 1999, Columbine, “Gun-Free”: 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
Feb 14,2008 Northern Illinois University, 1 gunman, 5 dead, 18 injured, gunman kills self long before police arrive to engage.
Nov 5 ,2009 Ft Hood Texas, 1 gunman, 13 dead, 30 wounded. Military personnel on base are BANNED from having a weapon, but the shooter did, and it was almost 9 minutes before police responded

Gun Free Zone 5 incidents

Defenseless victims murdered: 86
Defenseless victims injured: 117

cont

December 17, 1991 Shoney’s Family Restaurant, Anniston, AL: 3 gunmen, 20 hostages, one ARMED customer (Thomas Glenn Terry). Police finally arrived to find one dead robber, one wounded robber and the third had fled when the shooting started. NO INJURED INNOCENTS.
October 1, 1997, Pearl High School: 1 gunman, 2 murdered, 7 injured: Stopped by ARMED vice principal.
January 16, 2002, Virginia Appalachian School of Law: 1 gunman, 3 murdered, 3 injured. Killer was stopped when confronted by two ARMED students.
Dec 9 2007, Colorado Springs, New Life Church, 1 gunman 2 murdered, 3 injured, gunman stopped when armed woman shoots gunman, who then turns gun on self and commits suicide, while 100 other church members are in church.
May 4th, College Station Georgia 2 gunman, 10 victims, 1 dead gunman, 1 victim wounded. The 2 thugs robbing a party begin discussing if they have enough bullets to do the job. One man retrieves his firearm, kills one thug, chases the other off.

Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance 5 incidents

murdered: 7
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; injured: 14

Wow, where no resistance occurred 9 plus times higher body count.

Yep, a higher body count is morally superior to a lower body count based on the anti's beliefs.

Please refrain from your what if fantasies cause if you wish to be a martyr, do it on your own time, not ours.

So mikey baby you still want to do NOTHING and let the shooter continue to do His Thing. What are you going to do when the bombs and bombers start going off in malls and theaters. You will be broken hearted if there are no guns involved....

Can you list any shooting sprees that have been stopped? Are you suggesting that Columbine or Virginia Tech could have been stopped if the students were armed?

Mike
Here is one of many that the media doesn't report.The shooting at Pearl Mississippi in 1997 was stopped by the vice principal that went to his vehicle to get his .45. He confronted the shooter and he gave up. He shot nine students (with a single shot 30/30 deer rifle) before the principal got his weapon.

Mike,

If a shooting spree was stopped it couldn't be named. However, there have been a number of cases where a potential shooting spree was stopped because somebody was armed. Airdoc mentions one.

Yes, there have been school situations that have been stopped because students or teachers had access to guns. Consequently, there was no shooting spree.

Semi-Autos ARE permitted for hunting in PA. I'll leave it up to the readers to research and educate themselves on this.

Bob;

We "must" I repeat "must" have "Jesus" in "any" conversation that has to do with violence.... Why??? Because If we "all" conducted ourselves the way "Jesus" did; There would be "no violence"!!!......Do we "all" agree?

Mark A. I guess you feel a responsible gun owner shouldn't be out their practicing to use their weapons properly. I like to have a well trained shooter over someone who buys a gun and never fires it.

Idon't know what range markey uses but it scares me.....

Ann:
And while you are at it, ban the sale of all reloading equipment, primers, cases, powder, and projectiles. Serialize each bullet and each case, AND put a mark on the firing pin that will identify the gun that fired the bullet. How about one gun a month per person. Let's establish an armory where all citizens must store their private arms.

Let's---wait a minute, if it had not been for the Mad King George's idea to do precisely that (the armory), the first gun control measure imposed upon us, we might still be flying the Union Jack. And you thought the Revolution was started because of tea tax?

The founders were not dummies. Dr. Franklin, upon leaving the Hall, was asked "Dr. Franklin, what have you given us?" to which he replied "a Republic madam, if you can keep it."

And oh by the way, your ideas have surfaced in state legislatures and have roundly dismissed. Arms in the hands of law abiding citizens save lives. http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/ is but one of many places you can read real stories of common men and women stopping crimes by force of arms.

In closing, Gun Control: The idea that a woman found raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to a police officer how her attacker suffered a mortal bullet wound.

Read about Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, who I have met and spoken with, and get back to me about Victim Disarmament Zones.

Just what we need more taxes now you want to tax a person for protecting themselves. Maybe we can tax on the amount of air we breathe.

Since 92% of all deaths by illegal use of a firearm, please enlighten everyone how you intend to implement that tax upon the career criminals, gang members, and suiciders?

What would poor ann do if a gang of bad people ran through her neighborhood at 3am breaking into houses and doing bad things enmass. Oh wait ann knows that would never happen and everyone knows bad things only happen to other people

Mr. Sampson:
I totally agree with your posit that idiots and the psychotic should be prevented from owning firearms. Indeed, its a disqualifying statement if answered "yes" on BATFE Form 4473. Here in Pennsylvania, if one is "302'd", i.e. involuntarily committted to a mental institution, they are banned from lawfully purchasing arms. That information is stored in a central database, and if such a person attempts to buy, with cash or credit card, they'll be denied.

In my response to Ann, I pointed out that the shooter was under the care of a medical doctor, a psychiatrist. Is she to blame for NOT turning this lunatic's name over to authorities? The short answer is that safeguards are in place, but they are only effective if the MEDICAL community, along with law enforcement, quit coddling guys like the Colorado shooter. Early release for really bad people occurs with alarming frequency, but that's for another blog.

Jacob:
National Academy of Science studied the AWB and 57 other gun control schemes, and came to the not very startling conclusion that all failed miserably. AWB was bullshit anyway, as it addressed cosmetics. "Assault weapon" is an invented term. If I point a slingshot or BB gun at you, or a .22 rifle, its assault. So far as no one needing a firearm suitable for military purposes, capable of holding a high capacity magazine, Rabbi Dovid Bendory, Rabbinic Director, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, presents the most strident argument for high capacity magazines I've recently read. To see more on the learned Rabbi go here http://secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com/2011/03/rabbinic-director-of-jews-for.html His specific article on high capacity magazines is here http://www.ammoland.com/2011/03/30/high-capacity-gun-magazines-life-is-too-precious-to-risk-running-out-of-bullets/#axzz225f1yIsL

Jacob--do you really think a sign that says "No high capacity mags allowed" will stop a criminal? Do you think a murderer, dedicated to mayhem and body count, would carry but a single magazine? A tactical reload can be accomplished in a second by a practiced hand, so using your logic, only one magazine allowed per person?

Jacob needs a little training in matters of firearms. One ten round magazines times 10 magazines (already loaded) equals 100 live rounds. Three seconds to drop one mag and replace it with another. The M1 clip (it is a clip) contained 8 rounds and it sure did make a lot of good ones out of bad ones.

To MSgt., I have not personally read the the AWB, but will believe the assault rifle is an invented term. However, I was expressing my support for "assault rifles". I believe that a better definition could be established. To corky, sometimes it only takes seconds to stop a shooter. Plus, some of these shooters are like me and not trained in firearms and will be unable to reload their weapon that swiftly.

Duh- because Chicago has THE STRICTEST gun laws in the Country and to talk about the ever increasing gun violence there would go against Gun haters' theory that Gun Control laws SAVE LIVES.

I'm echoing Parent#2's sentiment. Those who run Chicago will never admit that gun control there has simply placed law abiding citizens into two categories, potential victims, or potential criminals because they have a gun anyway and will use it to defend their lives. You are aware that Ilinois has no provision for a license to carry a firearm at all, aren't you? Chicago is one huge Victim Disarmament Zone; a city and State that I avoid at all costs.

"President Obama and the communists that are following him". Did you really say such a patently absurd thing. Rush and Beck may have penetrated your sense of reason and logic with their constant hateful blabber. As for taking our freedoms away, have you noticed just what group is it that are frantically disenfranchising many, many thousands of people with bogus justification so as to enhance their chances of electing an ex governor? It sure isn't Obama and his "communist followers". There are not too many more important freedoms than the right to vote and it is disappearing.

proud American:
Point well taken, but I rather believe that Holder WILL NOT account for those arms that went to Mexico, as opposed to CAN NOT. I can't wait for the day that he is found in contempt of congress, and forced to tell the truth about Project Gunrunner and Fast and Furious.

MSgt. John DeLallo: I'm of the opinion that the republicans are trying to do the same thing they did with Clinton by trying to put the democrats against a wall with this Holder issue. They knew he WILL NOT disclose the information he has because he CAN NOT. There was a reason that the president used executive privileges. It was because the scandle goes deeper than that.

You mean like Reagan stooge Ollie North...the right wing hero?? Sold guns to Iran ...the country that held our citizens hostage for a year and now threatens us with nukes. But Ollie is a hero...a real patriot. They never accounted for squat either . I`m all for the gun control debate but lets leave the hypocritical BS out of this,please.

Whatever, bet you also claim a person can smell a fart 5 miles upwind in a category 5 hurricane also, doesnt make it true or relevant.

I really trust the federal government to make that decision maybe they will pick and choice who gets them also like drug lords.

". . . it should be up to the federal government to decide what type of weapons we are legally allowed to own."

Exactly the attitude the eletists wish to foster - to keep the Great Unwashed in line 'cause they know what's best for us.
However, just the OPPOSITE idea to that encouraged by the founders (and all the men and women who sacrificed their lives to give us this Republic) - the idea that We the People are Sovereign, and to maintain that they guaranteed (through the Bill of Rights) that Governments could NOT put limits on the our means to keep THEM in line.
Yet we have allowed them to talk us into putting limits on those "means", haven't we? Your arguments do nothing more than show that you have succumbed to the progressive drugs they put into your koolaid.

sorry if you want too "ban" some types of guns....than i feel they should ban any car that goes above 55mph because you dont need it....

ban bars because people do drink and drive, infact lets ban alcohol again...maybe that will work out! ban music, movies and lets see whatelse??? oh wait...i think this might be a scene from demolition man?!??!

Erin Connors - It is not BS, the racial component is being deliberately downplayed (and in most instances, ignored) in most of the media, and by most urban police spokespersons. What is happening culturally is frightening, and nothing is being done to directly address it. Since that is the case, it will get worse, and THAT is what I'm talking about. Your bias blocks your ability to accept the facts. This is a poisonous situation brewing, and if the media zeitgeist and the police enable its acceleration, you are going to see a "race war". I don't advocate it, I abhor it.

But that doesn't change the facts.

Outraged Citizen - See my response to Erin Conners. The "hits full stride" description is inevitable unless the PC media, politicians and police grow big enough balls to stop it.

Oh, and Erin....?

The occasional "white guy" who flips out and shoots multiple people in a single incident is much, much different than the black mobs of 20-100 people who now rampage on the streets with regularity, seeking to rob, beat and kill white people with a distinct racial hatred.

Wake up, girl.

@BHirsh – So, your “hits full stride” comment is kind of like “climate change.” There’s no real science or data behind it, but you know it to be true. Only true believers like yourself are “enlightened” enough to see the “signs.”And because of this belief, action by government and citizens needs to be taken to avert it. Yep, sounds just like “climate change.”

Perhaps the one foretold by Charles Manson. Yikes!

I reiterate, "Have you been reading the news?"

If not, here's your wake-up call: http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/07/2nd-amendment-proves-valid-defense-against-black-gangs-2444344.html

Of course, you're entitled to keep your head buried in that dune. Don't take offense if many of us don't join you.

Oh dear lord. Did this person just suggest that white people need to arm themselves against the upcoming onslaught of black gangs? Did I just read this? Please tell me that I am reading this incorrectly.

No, I just read the article that he posted. That is exactly what this person is warning us against. This person/blogger/super racist author that BHirch is citing as "news" wrote a book titled _White Girl Bleed A Lot." That is as far as I am looking into this bc it is nonsense.

Hey did you read about that white guy who shot up a bunch people in the movie theater? Make no mistake, whitey is coming for you too. Which one do I shoot first!?

typo correction *onslaught _by_ black gangs (not of them. BHirsh would probably be cool with that).

To be sure, these events are horrific. I think the question was directed at the “hits full stride” portion of your comment.

@Ed – Your question was meant to frame the discussion so that you occupy the position of power. While a good tactic, it’s ultimately the wrong question. A better one would have been, “Does the US Constitution define “arms” as it relates to the Second Amendment?”

Under the strictest interpretation of the Second Amendment, and in accordance with the writings of the Founders, all freemen should own weapons suitable for military purposes, ammunition, and accoutrements. As our Armed Forces are being notched down in number, Freedom would likely have to be defended by citizens conscripted for service. And you would have them bring a Colt SAA to the fray?

Directly to your question, Ed, guns are not a need based item. Its a want based item. I want,and if I have enough cash I will have, a full auto firearm. They ARE legal to own, but only if the gun is manufactured prior to 1986. They were first regulated in 1934 by the NFA, then again by the Gun Control Act of 1986, which made the supply limited, and the demand still very high. What I could have bought in 1987 for 5 grand now costs nearly 20 thousand. Ed, may I cordially suggest you research the requirements imposed by the central Government on the purchase, storage, and ownership of a full auto firearm?

Your question on semi-auto's is a little late in the game. The standard US sidearm, John Moses Browning 1911 celebrated 100 years of service last year. Most semi-auto firearms, pistols in particular, are based on a design from 1909. (O.K., you purists out there, yes I'm aware of the broomhandle Mauser, born before the turn of the 20th century) The M-1 Garand has been around since before 1940, and is the basis for most semi auto rifles and shotguns (gas operated).

Ed-On a very serious note, are you a shooter of any stripe--self defense, target shooting, hunting, collector? This isn't a slap at you, but more an opportunity to provide you with facts, not opinions or political statements.

If you're not a shooter, I'll be more than pleased to arrange a range day with you. Ammo isn't cheap, so its byoa (bring your own ammo). I'll provide the firearms, and promise NOT to talk politics, only the operational characteristics of various semi auto arms (as well as revolvers and pump shotguns, crank bolt rifles, and breech loading shotguns). If you're interested in learning about "modern day firearms", and I put that in quotes because the most modern are based on designs from the late 19th and early 20th century, let me know. I'd love to get past the rhetoric and right on to the firing line.

In my hardly never humble opinion, the more one knows about firearms, and the more one shoots, the less they question the utility of semi-auto firearms.

I have shot rifles and handguns, John, but I am in no way considered a pro. Strictly a rank amateur.

Outraged,
My question not meant to frame anything. And your "better one" is really not since the answer is obvious.

@ed. the same can be asked about everything....

Why does the ordinary American citizen need to own a car that can go above the speedlimit?

Why does the ordinary American citizen need to walk past a starbucks on every corner that serves nothing good for you?

Why does the ordinary American citizen need to go to a bar that serves beers and booze all night to then have the freedom to get into a car that goes well above the legal speed limit!

you can keep asking it!!!

@ED you can also ask, Why does the ordinary American citizen need to own fertilizer....didnt an american (tim mcveigh) make a very big bomb at of something with that??

pretty soon you wont have anything left to take away!

@Ed – Whether subconscious or not, you framed the question in such a way a citizen would have to defend/justify the ownership of legal property. In this case, the ownership of certain firearms. Why would a citizen need to defend/justify owning legal property?

Regarding my question, I asked it because it is germane to the point you’re attempting to make. You said the answer is obvious, please expound.

Outraged,

Nothing was framed in any state of consciousness and you claiming it was is not true. I never asked why someone needed to own something the can legally own. I asked why do they need them. You and others can twist and turn it around anyway you like but fertilizer and walking past a Starbucks or buying a bidet is not even remotely close to the topic and thinking so is a huge stretch of logic. There is no slippery slope here.

@Ed – These two sentences, “I never asked why someone needed to own something the[y] can legally own. I asked why do they need them” seem to contradict each other. I’m not sure what, if any, distinction you’re meaning to make in these two sentences.

Despite this apparent contradiction, my point was why does someone need to justify owning legal property? That’s the information you were seeking by asking, “Why does the ordinary American citizen need to own a semi or automatic weapon?” Maybe the subtleties are getting lost here.

Before this question, you stated, “While I agree we all have the right as provided by the 2nd Amendment to own weapons it should be up to the federal government to decide what type of weapons we are legally allowed to own. I really don't think semi and automatic weapons should be sold legally.” This is why I suggested asking “Does the US Constitution define “arms” as it relates to the Second Amendment?” To this obvious question, I await your answer.

"pretty soon you wont have anything left to take away!"

Typical response for those who don't get it.

@Ed – As I didn’t state, "pretty soon you wont have anything left to take away!" I still await your answer to the obvious question.

The most succinct answer to your question is, "To put citizens on a par with the government's foot soldiers and police." At bottom, that was a fundamental reason for recognizing the right to arms.

As to the government's right to "allow" or to "prohibit" them, U.S. v. Miller established a two-pronged test, and D.C. v. Heller cited that test in its holding. "Protected" arms must be "in common use" and "bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia". Since all semi-automatic small arms meet both prongs of this test, they are off-limits to government interference.

Sorry, but that is just the fact, Jack.

Nah Jarhead. You just want to read something that isn't there.

Outraged,

The answer to your obvious question is as obvious as the question itself.
What I meant was why is there a need to own a semi or automatic weapon? I know it's legal. I'm not questioning the legality. I just don't understand the need to own!

Ok then enlighten EVERYONE how many different interpetations of the word NEED there are,

Everyone needs to breathe.

Everyone needs water.

Everyone needs to eat.

Everyone needs to sleep.

Everyone needs to work unless your rich, homeless and dont care, or entitled like welfare and politicians are.

etc, etc, etc, etc....

Wow, sure sounds like choosing to own a specific weapon is based more on a choice.

Your interpetation of what other people need has not one single thing to do with their right to choose, PERIOD!

So keep on playing your silly little word games you blowjob isnt sex kinda guy!

OK Jarhead do you need a semi or automatic weapon? If yes, why?

@Ed – I think we’re almost there. I know you’re not questioning whether it’s legal to own a firearm. What you are questioning is the need to own a firearm, as evidenced when you ask, “OK Jarhead do you need a semi or automatic weapon? If yes, why?”

I ask again, why does a citizen need to justify to you the ownership of legal property?

@BHirsh – I cannot begin to fathom your reasoning in responding. If you had read the entire thread, you might have had some semblance of where it was going. I think it’s time for you to run away now. I think I hear the black helicopters swirling.

Outraged,
To own something just because you can is really kind of a dumb reason. Heck, I can own an emu but I have absolutely no need to own one.

@ed....again you keep asking the same question. which you can keep asking...because its your right...just like its your right to ask the question...

and again, own a car that does more than 55 mph. WHY DO YOU NEED THAT....WHY?

@Ed – I also believe owning an emu is unnecessary. I also believe giving eight year old children iPhones is unnecessary. But that’s the great thing about our country, the freedom to own things others think are unnecessary.

So, let’s get back to the question. Why does a citizen need to justify to you the ownership of legal property?

Now that is a thought....maybe the goverment should start banning things that they find unnecessary!!

I vote for!

1.) reality shows...
2.) starbucks...
3.) Valentines Day!
4.) grass, if you didnt HAVE to mow think about how much stuff you can do....
5.) Mcdonalds!

1. Because its cool looking
2. Because it increases in value over time, expecially as the antis keep playing their stupid games making it a safe long term investment
3. Because it pisses the anti's off so much that I have them
4. Because it is fun to shoot
5. Because of bad shoulders, it is necessary to have the firearm cycle itself rather than I pumping the action, cycling a bolt or reloading a side by side quickly when shooting doves, waterfowl, or prairie dogs, or pigeons, or a followup shot on a running deer in thick cover, etc, etc, etc, etc making the hunting experience more enjoyable.
6. See # 3 again.
7. Because many of my friends thinks its cool and fun!
8. See # 3 again.
9. Because it reduces the decibel report enough so the neighbors dont get pissed when I practice or take care of an offending woodchuck., oh wait, we are not talking about suppressors are we? You know, that class3 device that many anti gun nations in Europe require gun owners to have and use as it reduces the noise of practice, naw, that would be too enlightened for the anti's here.
10. See # 3 again.
11. Most importantly because I can.

Now if you dont like that, TJTFB.

Ed M - The answer to your question, Why does the ordinary American citizen need to own a semi or automatice weapon" To resist government tyranny.

To answer your question Outraged, No the Constitution does not define 'arms'. However, other writings of the Founding Fathers mention 'arms' in many contexts. The most used common law definition is man-portable weapons.

The typical answers. Just because you can own something doesn't mean you need to own something. And, as expected, there were the inane comparisons to breathing and eating and drinking water.

I have no problem with people owning weapons. I just don't see the need to own a semi or automatic weapon.

Need = requirement, obligation

Ok, we get it, closet Nazis believe rights that are a choice are a mandated obligation that everyone MUST do them, a position totalitarion minds seem fixated on, we get it we get it.

We get you are also too stoopid to discern the difference between choice and a need.

We understand you are too stoopid to understand we dont give a hoot about what you think others want.

We understand you are too stoopid to acquire the authority to do anything about it, much less change the US Constitution & BOR.

We understand you will whine about your inability to discern these differences until you die because you are stoopid.

Uh do you want us all to send you some cheese to go with that annoying childish whine you seem destined to have the rest of your life?

Step #8 -go back to step #3

I understand quite well, Jarhead. You seem to be the one who thinks need and choice are the same thing. Just because you can doesn't mean you need to. And again the typical name calling and berating comes out.
BTW Jarhead, are you gonna eat with that mouth?

@Ed – I think we understand your point regarding the difference between need and want. I get you believe that ownership of a semi or fully automatic weapon is unnecessary and you are having a difficult time understanding why another citizen would choose to own one.

I’m not so sure you understand the point regarding a citizen’s right to determine his/her own wants or needs. Given this right, why would a citizen have to justify ownership of a legal firearm to you anymore than you would need to justify to me ownership of legal property I find unnecessary?

Poor ED, what about "you dont have any say in what I do or dont do dont you understand"?

Why do you believe you have a say?

WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?

Oh yeah already covered why, cause your too stoopid or maybe its hardheaded to understand!

Ed, we dont know how to fix your brand of stupidity, really we dont.

Thats not name calling, thats just the facts.

"and again, own a car that does more than 55 mph. WHY DO YOU NEED THAT....WHY?"

Because the speed limit on most interstates in PA is 65 mph and in other states it's higher than 65 mph. How's that!

My brand of stupidity Jarhead????? So the only answer you have is because it's your right to own a semi or automatic weapon? That is one sad reason.

When all else fails, resort to name calling. Typical radical.

Well Ed M, that is the typical answer because that IS the answer. It's the ONLY answer, like it or not. The founding fathers didn't include the 2nd amendment to make hunters happy. They were clearly visionaries, unlike the leadership of today.

That makes no sense Isabella.

Incorrect, the 5th amendment right of no self incrimination was upheld in both rulings, but the criminality of a felon possessing the weapon was reinstated in Freed, which was about grenades anyway, not firearms, as the way the original ruling of Haynes was, it wiped ALL of the law off the books as it applied to felons and eesentially rescinded the 1934, & 1968 Federal Gun Control Acts which identify the 10 categories of people who by due process have lost their rights.

Since registration, background checks, reporting of stolen weapons, etc, etc, etc, and anything related to identifying oneself is still self incrimination and all those portions of the laws are still irrelevant and not applicable to felons.

Gary:
The concept of "easy accessibility to firearms" is a myth promulgated by folks like the Brady Campaign and CeaseFirePA. One does not simply walk into Dick's or Dunham's or any other firearm retailer, shake hands with a sales clerk, and walk out. Here in Pennsylvania, in addition to the BATFE Form 4473 AND a mandatory Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) background check, both required for the sale of long guns, there is a ROS form for handguns that goes to the Pennsylvania State Police. Both Federal and State agencies have more information about you on file than you'd care to know. Getting a voucher or a reference from a family member? I'm thinking about the Stanton Heights murderer who gunned down the Pittsburgh Police officers. I bet she would have been a wonderful reference. I've listened to the 911 tapes.

You mention you have a License to Carry Firearms, but the process is too easy. Really, you willingly paid for a RIGHT guaranteed you by the Constitution. Personally, I'm pushing very hard for HB 2176, Constitutional Carry, where any person not otherwise prohibited may carry concealed firearms. You were subjected, whether you know it or not, to an intense background check to get your license. Current Pennsylvania statute in Act 18 requires, under the "character and reputation" clause, 2 personal references for a License to Carry.

Gary, your intentions are good, and they are already codified in law. Oh, and not everyone passes the background check.

John: All I'm saying is that there are too many nuts running around out there that have legal access to guns. My idea of using vouchers was an attempt at making known to the people closest to applicants, that the person wants a firearm for some reason or another. If the person is going to be among the public with the weapon, the public should be made aware of it. And possibly object to it.

We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy and we WILL NOT allow a stupid f##$%^^g mob of idiots vote on whether or not we LAWFULLY EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS.

Is that plain enough or does this need explained in a more tactless way?

Gary: Taking your argument to its most logical conclusion, then, We the People, regardless of our level of training in psychology, should be turning in friends, neighbors, and family members if we think they are a bit "odd". From there, we could turn in our neighbors because they practice a religion that makes us uncomfortable, or perhaps because they champion political positions that are socialist; or too far to the right? Maybe we should write down the license number of every car we see breaking the vehicle code?

In the late 70's and early 80's, this experiment was tried in Argentina under the dictatorship of General Gualtieri. Those reported as being communists were summarily arrested by the secret police, and never heard from again. They are known now as the desaparacedos--the disappeared ones.

John, if I thought the religious group next door to me was preaching about my destruction or a political group was advocating a huge upset to my way of life, I probably would report it. If a car comes speeding down my street in the middle of the afternoon with my children playing about, or I see a vehicle weaving all over the road I probably would report it. And if I thought someone with the propensity to walk into my kids class room and shoot them up with an AK-47, I would probably want to put a stop to it. Then again I could just take matters into my own hands and become judge, jury and executioner all in rolled into one I guess. And how much easier that would be when I can obtain almost any kind of fire-power I desire.

And Jarhead I think it would be rather "stoopid" of my to debate with you.

Well said Michael. To quote Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government".

very well stated Isabella I have forgotten all about the quote from Thomas Jefferson and it says it all no need to say more.

Wrapped up in your depends? ;)

Nah, couldn't find the dry powder but I did find my Red Ryder Daisy Air Rifle. That would work against terrorists in those designer vests. Besides, the British are too busy being scolded by an ex governor to bother with a nation that refuses to set up a proper health care system when most other "civilized" nations already have - oops, that's another one of those commie subjects of which we can be very proud
Americans.

The "... put down our guns ..." argument reveals the extent to which Eastern Mysticism has infiltrated the thinking of our citizens.

@Erin – You know I love you, but the article is titled “Should Congress Enact Tougher Gun Laws?” I think speaking in the abstract or the hypothetical is appropriate given the topic.

@Outraged - Then we will agree to disagree, as I do not think speaking in the abstract about government legislation is ever appropriate. Breeds misinformation and fear mongering. The fault is not in the question. I read the question and was inspired to read up on what is actually being discussed in congress right now, researched for hours and hours, and wrote an article (rather than try to respond in this mess). Therefore the question inspired digging for facts inside of reality and not raging against a machine that does not exist (yet...I am no prophet...Ha.).

It was inspiration that I need too. National gun regulation is not really a big issue for me. USA involvement in international arms dealing is. So I thank this article for giving me that direction, and I my cyber eye roll stands over the response. I don't like when people are afraid or filled with rage against their govt without really knowing why. It makes me sad. :)

That came off kind of self-righteous, and I did not mean it to be. I love discourse on politics and anything that encourages it. I just wish the conversations most typically had would be a little more relevant to reality. there is a lot of good information here...so how does it apply to actual legislation being discussed? The Arms Trade Treaty is huge! Obama's opposition should bring up a lot of attention and inquiry into the USA as the largest international arms dealer in the world! but I already wrote like 5 pages on the topic, so I will stop myself there. ;)

@Erin – You never need to feel bad about coming off as self righteous.

I hope you are willing to admit that all legislation (or the need for all legislation) is abstract until it is drafted, debated, amended, debated again, voted on and signed into law. The abstract is the birth place of legislation/public policy. To say the abstract has no place ever in discussions about the government would stifle it to a standstill. Wait a second, that might not be a bad idea. Ha!

The topic of this thread is, “Should Congress Enact Tougher Gun Laws?” It’s natural that those who believe Congress should to suggest what those tougher laws might look like. It’s also natural for those who oppose to explain why tougher laws are not needed. Do these discussions become heated, yes they do. Do they get personal, you betcha! That’s what is great about issues that inspire such passion in participants. It is through this crucible that we get to the root of the issues and thoughts are laid bare.

Yup, most of us have noted that politico's kids in D.C. go to a school with 12 armed guards. Most of us have noted that Bloomberg goes nowhere without a security detail. Most of us have noted that lifetime Secret Service protection extends to all living Presidents of the U.S. Worse, most of us have noted the specious arguments about "high cap magazines". My AR came from the factory with a 20 round and a 30 round mag. That would be "standard capacity", no?

Interjecting hysteria into discussions about guns is the modus operandi of anti gunners. God forbid that facts, such as how many crimes are prevented each year by good guys with firearms, get in the way of an anti gun rant.

If you are asking if many politicians are hypocrites, I guess the answer would be yes.