Speakeasy forum: They're not NRA members, they're gun owners

Firstly, I Hope you don't mind me butting in.
I live in Wales U.K. Ihave loved guns since I was a toddler. I served in the army and have fired a shot in anger.

I live in a vallies town of 5000 and know exactly where the nearest firearm is located to me 100 metres. This belongs to a friend who shoots deer and boar.
After Michael Ryan and the Dunblane incidents the government banned the use of sidearms and automatic shotguns.

Apart from our airports and stations you will not see an armed cop on the beat although an ARU is never far away. So why would an individual need a 30 shot clip?
And as for the people who jeered the father of one of the victims, they are just morons and represent everything that's bad in America.

Dafydd, Wales U.K. unlikely to get shot tonight.
P.S. Wales lost to Ireland at rugby good job I ain't got a gun.

Civilians owning tanks, rockets, missiles, drones.

What gives America the right to restrict weapons in the rest of the world and NOT restrict American citizens from owning any weapon THEY want?

IF you want it...you can have it?

It says "arms." So yes, your point is a good one. If people are going to be so obstinate about the word "infringed," then I should be able to keep nukes in my apartment.

......that the Amendment means the same thing now as it did then, and that the term "well-regulated militia" means the same thing now as it did then, then "arms" means the same thing now as it did then -- armaments. Armaments would include RPGs, missile launchers, bazookas, pretty much anything including nuclear weapons. The US/Soviet arms race was called an arms race, not a nukes race.

If you want to limit the term "arms" to what was available in 1789, I'm good with that. Let's see someone shoot 70 people in 90 seconds with a musket.

You didn't think I pulled that number out of thin air, did you?

He wasn't using them all at the same time. He only has two hands.

You didn't think it was possible. It is, and it happened quite recently.

who want to insure a decent chance of self defense while moving around in public would only be carrying a weapon of personal defense such as a handgun. I seriously doubt they'd want to lug a shotgun, machine gun, or other heavier armament around unless there was a known current valid threat that might require it, and in that case they are even less likely to leave home to move about publicly.

That sort of thinking concerning heavier weapons is like thinking someone will be lugging a fuel filled heater around everywhere in the winter, instead of just putting on a good coat when leaving home.

People keep introducing ridiculous situations that in real life rarely to never happen and then try and use that straw man argument to belabor a misguided point they hope to make.

I just reviewed and realize it was elsewhere, but overall I've not opposed what you just posted. I was saying that the arguments about home defense often claim you need the huge magazines to defend against a home invasion by multiple individuals. I didn't make that argument I was acknowledging it when I said in some ways I didn't care what you had at home. I'm responding to the arguments, not initiating them. Neither side had a monopoly on hyperbole or plain stupidiness.

The comment about those semi coverted to automatic during my lifetime was in response to the idea that individuals didn't have automatic weapons because they were outlawed in the past. Odd in that thos arguing the criminals will always get guns would argue no one had automatics because they were illegal.

Many people who are not really criminals do thing that are technically illegal. Often they feel that since it's just at home, no harm no foul. Some people who are not drug crazed, nor psychopaths, nor even a threat to the public, just love guns and collect them, even ilegal ones just to own them. It's similar I guess to those that will buy are they can't show to the public because it's provinance is so uncertain. You never knew anyone that would love to have a old working 50's style machine gun just because they wanted it? people that would never be out shooting up the mall.

The point about heavy argument was in regard to if your argument is based on the 2nd amendment keeping the citizens armed enough to prevent a government from becoming tyrannical, the citizen has to have the same weaponry as the military.

Why do tools like David Frum need the 1st Amendment Right of Freedom of the Press?

Rights are not based on "need" - Mark

what you consider an "assault weapon" and why it's worse being killed by that than another gun which shoots the same ammo. More timed space between shots makes death a little easier to accept? All this blather about "assault weapons" is just so much hooey.

.....chanting slogans and otherwise aiming to merely disrupt vs. engage as "heckling."

That it was being done to a man who lost his six-year-old son in a mass shooting two months ago just adds a low-class element to it.

that should be used to "infringe" the First Amendment to the same extent they have infringed the Second Amendment and see if the Liberal News Media would accept such equality of application.

1) If you've ever reported an inaccurate story, you can be fined. (look out Dan Rather and Connie Chung!) Repeated violations will result in loss of license to report.

2) You must first pass a govt check before you can be issued a license to report.

3) "Open carry" means you are not allowed "confidential sources" unless licensed for "concealed confidences"l

4) You may not act as a reporter anywhere other than at home or at your workplace (reporting range)

5) There will be only certain seasons when you can hunt for certain stories.

6) You must do all your reporting using pen, pencil, and paper and only at your place of business can you use a computer since it can process too much information in a short period of time.

7) You will be limited on the number of pens, pencils, and sheets of paper allowed to be kept at home unless you recieve a special reporter's "collector's license" allowing you to possess more.

8) If you accidentally discharge a story which slanders someone to the extent their reputation is injured causing them financial harm or grief through your character assassination, you will be charged with "murderous slander" and tried for that crime in court on a felony charge.

9) All paper will have special "tags" placed in them same as gunpowder, so any papers discovered at a news site which may be under investigation for murderous slander, that paper can be properly tracked back through it's sources between you and the original producer, including all paper suppliers both wholesale and retail who are required to keep accurate records of such paper and it's tags.

10) ............

viable news source reaching a large audience.

Wow! this is one busted country. Come on, Billie the Kid, Pat Garret, and John Wayne all died long ago.
Dafydd.
Wales. U.K.