Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by DZ

Good discussion.
Here is a hypothetical question.
If you had a neighbor that had 42 weapons, all acquired legally, wouldn't you want to know? Should we have the right to know? I know we can compare it those who collect other things but most other collectibles are not considered deadly weapons. Is it a privacy issue?

Scott mentions a good point that it would be a bad idea because then criminals would then know you have a cache of weapons and try to steal them. Of course any responsible gun owner would have them in a locked weapons vault I assume. Could also be a good deterrent if it was publicly known that your home was armed to the hilt.

What we look for when we have civil discourse about a topic is a reason WHY for a stated position. John did that well with his response to my comments. The old argument of we can't do it because "It will set a precedent" doesn't cut it. Tell me why banning bump stocks is wrong and who it would hurt if they were banned. Explain why owning 42 deadly assault weapons should be legal. These are questions in the national discussion. I'm here to learn from both sides.

Well, it sound like the shooter took multiple legal semi-automatic rifles (not assault weapons) and through mods made them near equivalent to automatic rifles - something heavily regulated since the 1930s and almost impossible to attain since 1984. This shooter may have been able to afford real autos because they costs thousands with a couple digits before the comma. But he went the mods route.

We can have a good debate on the Bumpstocks - in fact, the Evil NRA just released a statement that the Guv should look into if Bumpstocks and other methods to realize capacities closer to full auto should be banned. See attached.

If my neighbor owned 42 deadly assault weapons legal semi-automatic rifles I'd demand some range time with my neighbor to learn more.

Part of the concern with the National discussion is that people want to take them away because your neighbor having grenade launchers and Zombie stocks is morally not woke enough. /sarc

Lots of disinformation and purely wrong info out there by people that want them banned.

As for the safe, yes, your guns should be locked up and many states have regulations for that to protect against theft and negligent access by kids / other adults. My kid (that I throughout support as a great & responsible kid) does not have the combo to the safe. But a determined thief can usually bust a safe in an hour or less.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by DZ

If you had a neighbor that had 42 weapons, all acquired legally, wouldn't you want to know? Should we have the right to know?

no and no....they are legally owned and registered, the local authorities know.....if you purchased 4 firearms a year over 10 years you'd have 40 weapons......people actually collect these like anything else, the drive to acquire something that you don't have or would like to add to your collection or to find something valuable for a good price all fuels this...I know people that collect some unusual stuff and spend what most would consider insane amounts of money to acquire certain things...a "collection" of one or two things isn't all that interesting, a large collection of any related objects is pretty interesting....I know...we're talking about firearms that can injure and kill...there's no shortage of preaching about properly storing these things and training for use

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by DZ

Good discussion.
Here is a hypothetical question.
If you had a neighbor that had 42 weapons, all acquired legally, wouldn't you want to know? Should we have the right to know? I know we can compare it those who collect other things but most other collectibles are not considered deadly weapons. Is it a privacy issue?

Scott mentions a good point that it would be a bad idea because then criminals would then know you have a cache of weapons and try to steal them. Of course any responsible gun owner would have them in a locked weapons vault I assume. Could also be a good deterrent if it was publicly known that your home was armed to the hilt.

What we look for when we have civil discourse about a topic is a reason WHY for a stated position. John did that well with his response to my comments. The old argument of we can't do it because "It will set a precedent" doesn't cut it. Tell me why banning bump stocks is wrong and who it would hurt if they were banned. Explain why owning 42 deadly assault weapons should be legal. These are questions in the national discussion. I'm here to learn from both sides.

So you are suggesting NIMBY? not in my backyard. Like building a prison nearby or some other unpopular thing. Bullcrap DZ, the guns , no matter how many are not going to leave the safe and harm anyone on their own.
Locks are for honest people, a criminal with a grinder can take care of that in minutes.


42 deadly assault weapons is not the term to use in a discussion about semi automatic rifles. A so called assault rifle would be the military version of an Armalite rifle AR15 as they are known and the military assault rifles have select fire. Machine guns are not legal since the 30's so don't be like the anti gun liberals by calling a common ar-15, AR-10 ( which is the .308 version as opposed to the .223 caliber)or an AK-47 an assault rifle.

They are picking away with their gun control little by little, it is about control. They can't control us, so they want to mistakenly try to control guns. I call them guns not weapons.

[DZ]

Good one - I was going to ask if collecting live hand grenades was/is legal. I have no idea? My bad with the deadly assault weapons - I should have said potentially deadly semi-automatic rifles. Either way I'd want to know but that is another discussion. Good stuff John!

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by DZ

Good one - I was going to ask if collecting live hand grenades was/is legal. I have no idea? My bad with the deadly assault weapons - I should have said potentially deadly semi-automatic rifles. Either way I'd want to know but that is another discussion. Good stuff John!

There may be some way to collect inert ones but never tried not desired enough to bother looking. Other than a 10 second lookup based on this thread. I have seen Inert Artillery shells in Army Navy stores but never in one's house.

Did make homemade gunpowder once with a friend when we were 12. Lit up one helluva genie - Trying to explain to the Pharmacist that one of the ingredients was for a school experiment, hahaha.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by DZ

Good one - I was going to ask if collecting live hand grenades was/is legal. I have no idea? My bad with the deadly assault weapons - I should have said potentially deadly semi-automatic rifles. Either way I'd want to know but that is another discussion. Good stuff John!

I think it's a no on the live hand grenades and I understand anyone who can't understand why someone would collect firearms, I also understand why some do...I stopped hunting primarily because I hunted with some knuckleheads once and decided I didn't really want to be in the woods if those guys or some facsimile might be out there...a .30-06 is a pretty common semi-automatic hunting rifle and also potentially deadly

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by DZ

Good one - I was going to ask if collecting live hand grenades was/is legal. I have no idea? My bad with the deadly assault weapons - I should have said potentially deadly semi-automatic rifles. Either way I'd want to know but that is another discussion. Good stuff John!

right, that is better

[Nebe]

Gun collectors don't want anyone to know what they have in case something like the big "Obama is going to take our gun" scare really happens
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Obama and Hillary have been the best gun salespeople of all time

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Obama and Hillary have been the best gun salespeople of all time

And the NRA marketed that Fear expertly and Gun owners believed all of it and still believe .. there will be no more bump stocks to ban they will all be bought up by Saturday.. the ban if it happens will grandfather in the old ones

The NRA understands this so their PR stunt to support the ban has not credibility its good optics

[Nebe]

Yep
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

3% of Americans own half the country's 265 million guns
Between 300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen each year.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ence/90858752/

3% of Americans.... controlling gun control in congress you call that democracy ? I call it money

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

3% of Americans own half the country's 265 million guns
Between 300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen each year.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ence/90858752/

3% of Americans.... controlling gun control in congress you call that democracy ? I call it money

You can call it whatever you want, that doesn't make you correct. Spin statistics to make it look one sided. Life is about choices, not everyone chooses to be a gun owner. 3% choose to be armed and prepared for a tyrannical government and will resist a New World Order also. Your agenda does not compute. Common sense from statistics show gun control does not stop people from killing people.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Common sense from statistics show gun control does not stop people from killing people.

Seat belt laws do not "stop" all vehicle deaths. But they reduce vehicle deaths.

A very, very common argument I hear from the gun crowd, goes something like this..."if you enact such-and-such a ban, people can still get guns and kill others". In other words, they seem to be saying that unless a proposed gun law guarantees that there will be zero gun deaths, that there's no sense in enacting any laws.

No law is that perfect. Not one. So should we eliminate all laws?

Some (not all) gun crimes are committed with zero planning, sometimes people just snap in the heat of the moment. Common sense tells me, that in those cases, the less firepower the person (who is no longer completely in control of himself) has at his fingertips, the fewer graves we need to dig.

Some (not all) gun crimes are carried out by the mentally disturbed. Not all of these people have the ability to circumvent gun laws and either buy things on the black market, or manufacture it themselves.

No law is ever going to be perfect. That doesn't mean laws don't add value.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

You can call it whatever you want, that doesn't make you correct. Spin statistics to make it look one sided. Life is about choices, not everyone chooses to be a gun owner. 3% choose to be armed and prepared for a tyrannical government and will resist a New World Order also. Your agenda does not compute. Common sense from statistics show gun control does not stop people from killing people.

statistics are what they are no spin needed ... but you think they are fake ! but you think 3% choose to be armed and prepared for a tyrannical government and will resist a New World Order also.

and you think I am the one wearing the Tin foil hat LOL

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

3% of Americans own half the country's 265 million guns
Between 300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen each year.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ence/90858752/

3% of Americans.... controlling gun control in congress you call that democracy ? I call it money

From the article:

Overall, Americans own an estimated 265 million guns – more than one gun for every American adult, according to the study by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. Half of those guns – 133 million – were in the hands of just 3% of American adults, so-called “super owners” who possessed an average of 17 guns each, it showed.

Who here owns 17 Fishing Rods?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

From the article:

Who here owns 17 Fishing Rods?

The super owners consisted of an estimated 7.7 million Americans and owned between eight and 140 guns each. Nearly half of gun owners owned just one or two guns.

Fishing rod that are stole are usually show up in used in Crimes unlike
300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen each year.

and the Average thing doesn't change 3% own all the guns.

to be clear have has many guns as you want they all need to be registered and there should be a searchable data base, allow the CDC to study gun Violence , close the gun show loop hole . and stop the lie their coming for our Guns

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I think Bruce has been sitting up nights watching Patrick Swaye in Red Dawn way to many times.

And too many people think Marx and Che are cool - those that do directly or indirectly support the deaths of 100s of millions

Originally Posted by wdmso

statistics are what they are no spin needed ... but you think they are fake ! but you think 3% choose to be armed and prepared for a tyrannical government and will resist a New World Order also.

and you think I am the one wearing the Tin foil hat LOL

From the article:

Despite steep declines in violent crimes, an estimated 70 million firearms were added to American arsenals the past two decades, according to a new landmark study on gun ownership.

In the last 20 years, Americans bought over 150 million cars. https://www.statista.com/statistics/...es-since-1951/

Overall, Americans own an estimated 265 million guns – more than one gun for every American adult, according to the study by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. Half of those guns – 133 million – were in the hands of just 3% of American adults, so-called “super owners” who possessed an average of 17 guns each, it showed.

Originally Posted by wdmso

The super owners consisted of an estimated 7.7 million Americans and owned between eight and 140 guns each. Nearly half of gun owners owned just one or two guns.

Fishing rod that are stole are usually show up in used in Crimes unlike
300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen each year.

and the Average thing doesn't change 3% own all the guns.

to be clear have has many guns as you want they all need to be registered and there should be a searchable data base, allow the CDC to study gun Violence ,

The point equating with fishing rods - I figured even you could not be biased enough to miss it from earlier in this thread - was that you have MANY different rods for different purposes if you are a fishing enthusiast, particularly if you do Fresh and Salt or any other modifiers such as bait, plug, or fly.

Originally Posted by wdmso

close the gun show loop hole . and stop the lie their coming for our Guns

The gun show loophole - you mean that dealers (in most states) have to be official and can't sell from Trunk? Or that in some states a relative can sell you a gun without a background check? BTW - not something you can do in RI or Mass IIRC.

As for coming for the guns, you mean like this?





Or after Irma, USVI actually confiscated them?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Fishing rod that are stole are usually show up in used in Crimes unlike
300,000 and 600,000 guns are stolen each year.

Are those legally stolen guns? Maybe we should work on laws that restrict people from legally stealing guns. That legal theft loophole should be closed


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

New world order?
How is the kool aid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

New world order?
How is the kool aid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea, don't take my guns but no worries about using the DOJ to subpoena your social media because you hit like on an anti-trump meme. There is your new world order.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Let's move this conversation to what is important about this Country. What makes this Country (generally) safe, safer than any large country in the world: Freedom

Freedom is the underpinning of our society. The core of those freedoms are the right to speak and assemble, to redress your grievance against the country, to defend your life, your family, and your property. Freedom to respect, and yes, even disrespect. Freedom to enter old and new ideas into the national common and not go to jail or beheaded. Freedom to run a government of the people. And as a last resort, Freedom to change that government should it become tyrannical. We ain't perfect. we are flawed. But we do a better job than almost everyone else - in the world.
This conversation and spirited debate we have here does not happen in all countries. Some places you could die for saying this. Sometimes it is ugly.

Originally Posted by spence

Yea, don't take my guns but no worries about using the DOJ to subpoena your social media because you hit like on an anti-trump meme. There is your new world order.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hahaha - shall we find examples or sides being wrong and stuck on stupid??

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Let's move this conversation to what is important about this Country. What makes this Country (generally) safe, safer than any large country in the world: Freedom

Freedom is the underpinning of our society.

Agreed. But another cornerstone of our society, is the belief that your freedom to swing your arms in the air, ends where the tip of my nose begins. It's very clear that the founders never meant for any of the freedoms expressed in the Bill Of Rights, to be limitless.

I would never, ever support a ban on handguns, hunting rifles, or things that can reasonably be argued are for personal self defense. When we start talking about things that bring the killing potential to military-level numbers...I think that's a different conversation.

I concede that any bans are a limitation on freedom, there's no way to deny that. But the pro-gun side is refusing to concede that bans can have any value whatsoever. I don't get that argument. If you want to claim that it's not worth giving up the tools of war to save a few lives, well I disagree with that, but at least it's intellectually honest. To say out loud that bans won't help? I mean, we know that some bans are essentially worthless, especially in reducing garden-variety gun crime in urban areas, where handguns are available everywhere, so it's very easy to acquire the tools to kill a person or two.

Mass-shootings are a completely different problem, requiring a completely different fix. The body count will be very much driven by the tools that are available, which is why the Vegas shooter didn't choose to open fire with the Marlin .22 that my Dad taught me to shoot with. If that was all he had available to him, he could not have possibly shot 600 people. It's not possible.

I'm not saying we ban everything except the Marlin .22. I'm saying, at the very least, we need to be able to say out loud that if certain things were banned, it might make it harder to kill huge numbers of people in a short span of time. But we can't agree on that. So a conversation isn't possible.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1129483]

It's very clear that the founders never meant for any of the freedoms expressed in the Bill Of Rights, to be limitless.

/QUOTE]

1.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

no- not any(ever)

2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

infringe-so as to limit or undermine; encroach on.


I think your only argument might be through the 9th....

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

in other words...there are others not enumerated...but I don't think you can limit the enumerated rights because you think they may affect other rights that you perceive...meaning you can't infringe on your neighbors rights to keep and bear arms simply because they bother you.....contrary to what you wrote...you actually CAN yell fire in a crowded theater and you CAN drive without wearing a seat belt....those "choices" are not banned(a choice is not a "thing" it is a direction)...making those choices will cost you money or jail time...we ban things to take away the individuals ability to have a choice...to eliminate the choice to yell fire in a crowded theater you'd have to ban theaters.....you can't limit free speech(unless you are a leftist rent-a-mob) or infringe on the right to bear arms but you can impose various forms of punishment for choosing to use them in ways that affect the rights of others

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

New world order?
How is the kool aid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think Bruce has been sitting up nights watching Patrick Swaye in Red Dawn way to many times.

[afterhours]

so it's just the ...oooohh... 3% controlling congress? what about the others who own 133 million guns what influence do they have? don't like guns...don't own any- no one is forcing you to.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Seat belt laws do not "stop" all vehicle deaths. But they reduce vehicle deaths.

Seat belt law does not ban anything. It does not ban cars nor even superfast, super-powerful cars. It does not remove several ton trucks from the road. It doesn't require background checks. It doesn't restrict your right to own any of those. The greatest potential and actual reduction of vehicle deaths is safe, sane, drivers.

More to the point, seat belt laws have no impact on your ability to defend yourself against tyranny.

A very, very common argument I hear from the gun crowd, goes something like this..."if you enact such-and-such a ban, people can still get guns and kill others". In other words, they seem to be saying that unless a proposed gun law guarantees that there will be zero gun deaths, that there's no sense in enacting any laws.

Jim, I didn't think you would resort to sophistry. Your second sentence is a non-sequitur to the first. Maybe the word "seem" gives you a little connection to both statements, but the connection is so minute that it is shameful to try it.

No law is that perfect. Not one. So should we eliminate all laws?

Laws are required for direction, not perfection. They are necessary BECAUSE we lack perfection. Serious personal imperfections can lead to deaths and chaos. Because of that, most laws restrict personal or collective behaviors. But, in a fundamental, existential matter such as freedom vs subjugation, laws that favor freedom must exist to restrict government. The balance between freedom and subjugation, if there is a balance, must weigh in favor of freedom if freedom is the object. Otherwise, the power to rule is more important than the power to be free from unconsented rule.

Again, your sophistry overflows. Eliminating all laws because none is perfect is begging a question. A question that does not exist.

And, as you say, no law is perfect. There will be those who take advantage of their freedom to deny others of theirs. The only correction to that is to punish those who abuse others of their rights. But every diminishment in favor of the fundamental laws which restrict the rulers, and impose on freedoms to resist tyranny, is a path to that very tyranny.

Some (not all) gun crimes are committed with zero planning, sometimes people just snap in the heat of the moment. Common sense tells me, that in those cases, the less firepower the person (who is no longer completely in control of himself) has at his fingertips, the fewer graves we need to dig.

The brutal truth is that the number of graves does not change. It's when and how or why. Another brutal truth is that if we surrender a bit of freedom at every new moment of tragedy, that will not prevent future tragedies from which you surrender more freedom. It's a one way process. The end of the process, if freedom is your goal, is obvious. And that end is not freedom. Emotion is one of those feelings we have that can raise us to heights of beauty and passion. It also can lead us into destruction.

If your rebuttal is "how would you feel if it was your wife or child or friend that was killed?" I am certain, at this long road of coming to know myself, that I would not be selfish enough, hopeless enough, to strip one more layer of my fellow, want to say men but that convenient metaphor has been stripped from us, so I'll say the more awkward, of my fellow people's ability to resist dictatorial government.

Some (not all) gun crimes are carried out by the mentally disturbed. Not all of these people have the ability to circumvent gun laws and either buy things on the black market, or manufacture it themselves.

No law is ever going to be perfect. That doesn't mean laws don't add value.

It certainly doesn't mean that all laws do add value. So many of the laws we have been imposed on us since the war on our Constitution began have diminished the value of freedom and the personal responsibility that goes with it that we may be at a critical point where the scales will irrevocably be tipped in favor of all-powerful government. Getting rid of the Second Amendment is a huge tipping in that direction. If you apply the Socratic method of debate on gun control to its final conclusion, it is inescapable that elimination of the Second Amendment is the goal.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It certainly doesn't mean that laws do add value. So many of the laws we have been imposed on us since the war on our Constitution began have diminished the value of freedom and the personal responsibility that goes with it that we may be at a critical point where the scales will irrevocably tipped in favor of all-powerful government. Getting rid of the Second Amendment is a huge tipping in that direction. If you apply the Socratic method of debate on gun control to its final conclusion, it is inescapable that elimination of the Second Amendment is the goal.

"Seat belt law does not ban anything"

Sure it does. Before these laws, many people chose not to wear their seal belts. These laws ban that choice. That's a thing. If people were choosing not to wear seat belts despite the danger, I presume they felt like they had a good reason to do so. Now it's illegal to make that choice.

"seat belt laws have no impact on your ability to defend yourself against tyranny."

The feds have nukes, stealth bombers, those cool bombs that destroy caves, rail guns, etc. So the only reason they aren't using those against me, is because I might have a couple of guns in a vault? That makes more sense, than I can make when I say that smart laws might save a few lives? Really?

"the connection is so minute that it is shameful to try it"

I disagree. every night this week, I heard gun advocates claim that no gun control laws can effectively ban all attacks. They are saying, that because the laws aren't perfect, that they are worthless. I hear that every single night, all night long, from the right. It's one of the most common statements.

"The balance between freedom and subjugation, if there is a balance, must weigh in favor of freedom if freedom is the object."

Limitless freedom isn't the object, we know this. The founders were specific on that, that they weren't designing an anarchy. Some limits on freedom are perfectly constitutional. There is a tradeoff between liberty and security.

Cars cause a lot of deaths. I have never, not once, heard anyone call for a ban on cars. We aren't a society that wants to ban everything that's dangerous. Not even close.

I don't see a big benefit to allowing things like bump stocks and high capacity magazines. I see a very big benefit, to a few less graves being dug during mass shootings (I am not talking about street crime).

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Before these laws, many people chose not to wear their seal belts. These laws ban that choice. That's a thing.

I can't even keep up any more

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Agreed. But another cornerstone of our society, is the belief that your freedom to swing your arms in the air, ends where the tip of my nose begins. It's very clear that the founders never meant for any of the freedoms expressed in the Bill Of Rights, to be limitless.

The Founders meant, in fact clearly expressed in other documents, that the Constitution as a whole was created for a virtuous people. Freedom, as a foundational principle for a virtuous people, can only be achieved with the responsibility of all to respect all other's freedom. Their is no constitutionally prescribed limit to the freedom they envisioned. The Second Amendment basically limits government, not the people. The freedom to keep and bear arms is implied by that limitation on government to be without prescription, not to be granted but naturally inherited. The only limitation on any such natural right is not against the freedom as practiced by a virtuous people, but, obviously, only limitations against the corrupt persons who don't respect natural and virtuous freedom, but abuse it to their own ends to deprive others of their unlimited right. Those who break that natural compact, obviously, are not part of it.

I would never, ever support a ban on handguns, hunting rifles, or things that can reasonably be argued are for personal self defense. When we start talking about things that I think that's a different conversation.

As I said in my previous reply to you, the end goal is the elimination of the Second Amendment (as well as the Constitution itself). Your comment here is a perfect example of denying what the amendment is about. As uncomfortable as it is to you, it is precisely about the people being able to defend themselves against government which would, no doubt, require weapons that you say 'bring the killing potential to military-level numbers".


I concede that any bans are a limitation on freedom, there's no way to deny that. But the pro-gun side is refusing to concede that bans can have any value whatsoever. I don't get that argument. If you want to claim that it's not worth giving up the tools of war to save a few lives, well I disagree with that, but at least it's intellectually honest. To say out loud that bans won't help? I mean, we know that some bans are essentially worthless, especially in reducing garden-variety gun crime in urban areas, where handguns are available everywhere, so it's very easy to acquire the tools to kill a person or two.

Mass-shootings are a completely different problem, requiring a completely different fix. The body count will be very much driven by the tools that are available, which is why the Vegas shooter didn't choose to open fire with the Marlin .22 that my Dad taught me to shoot with. If that was all he had available to him, he could not have possibly shot 600 people. It's not possible.

Mass shootings are, indeed, a different problem. They occur far, far, more rarely than "garden variety gun crime." And that garden variety accounts, overall for far, far greater numbers of deaths than mass shootings. And the garden variety types have had the opportunities to use the big bad weapons. But the shock of killing lots of people at one time stuns us into thinking that the "gun problem" is about the type of weapons used. If you're intellectually and objectively honest, you would realize that the hand gun, in terms of numbers killed (which seems to be your criteria), is far more responsible for numbers killed. So if we use that Socratic Method, and keep asking on how to fix the "problem" of numbers killed by guns, eventually we'll have to admit that hand guns should be banned to the public. What would be left of the Second Amendment after that would be . . . nothing.

I'm not saying we ban everything except the Marlin .22. I'm saying, at the very least, we need to be able to say out loud that if certain things were banned, it might make it harder to kill huge numbers of people in a short span of time. But we can't agree on that. So a conversation isn't possible.

If we can't agree on the purpose of the Second Amendment, then a conversation isn't possible. And when the emotional incidents compound, there will be enough of that so revered "consensus" to eliminate the Second Amendment.

And when emotion supercedes principle, law is at the mercy of emotion.