Gun Control Anyone?

[Ghent12]

Re: Three questions: 1) Were automatic weapons used?

1) Did the recent school shooting involve automatic, rapid wire weapons?

2) What is an "assault rifle"?

3) Since the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, should the
second amendment be repealed, or interpreted to be contingent on "in a well organized militia"?

"Arms" might be thought to include hand grenades, cannons, bombs, jet fighters.

To bad all the lawyers did not get more specific about "arms".

1) To my knowledge, maybe. It was an XM-15, but there are two variants that either comply or do not comply with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban because some states have kept the law in place. I cannot find reliable reports on whether the XM-15 in question was fully automatic or just semi-automatic.

2) An assault rifle is different from an assault weapon. Basically an assault rifle is a battle rifle that may or may not be capable of full-auto or burst-fire modes. An assault weapon is a legal definition and as such, is ridiculous to the average person: a bayonet mount and a telescoping stock make a weapon an assault weapon, for instance.

3) There was no reason to get more specific about arms, as the real intent was to give the collective citizenry the power of military arms so they could not be easily subdued by force. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or self-defense, but of the legitimate concern that government of one kind or another would subdue the people with unreasonable and unjust demands.

[LorenS]

Re: Three questions: 1) Were automatic weapons used?

1) To my knowledge, maybe. It was an XM-15, but there are two variants that either comply or do not comply with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban because some states have kept the law in place. I cannot find reliable reports on whether the XM-15 in question was fully automatic or just semi-automatic.
.

So far all reports seem to indicate it was a semi automatic AR-15 style rifle. The XM designation is not correct, that is a military designation for experimental weapon systems and it's not likely that this guy got hold of a military experimental prototype.

Fully automatic weapons are probably not legal in Conn. however they are legal in several states. Fully automatic weapons are almost never used in crimes in spite of being as cheap as a typical new car, and in some states not that much more difficult to obtain. For all practical purposes fully automatic weapons are not suitable for criminal activity (at least in the US, Mexico has different problems). Without a logistical supply team the sustained rate of fire is no better than a semi auto.

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Right now heavy machine guns and RPGs are illegal in the US.

Not illegal, just heavily regulated.

Since the militia is supposed to be made up of individuals and since the second amendment was written for individuals it seems more than reasonable for the line to be drawn at crew served weapons. The militia are supposed to arm and train as individuals, hence individual weapons are appropriate.

Crew served weapons require a sophisticated logistical supply chain, teamwork and coordination with adjacent units. It's not reasonable to expect a "minute man" to show up for duty with a 27lb M-60 and 500 lbs of ammunition.



In fact, private corporations own and store and give "civilians" access to things that are, on the balance, the equivalent to RPGs and hand grenades. As Tim McV aptly demonstrated some of that stuff is quite dangerous, but isn't really relevant to the 2nd amendment. Somehow, corporations, though considered "people" by the supreme court, are granted far more privileges than real people when it comes to arms.

[shiny!]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Bullshit:

... The several hundred million firearms are capable of being confiscated. Even yours. ESPECIALLY YOURS.

From a practical perspective, you have all convinced yourselves that firearms are good and therefore any such legislation should be off the table.

I can't believe you've all had this discussion for this many days and have come to this conclusion. You're all sick. Even Shiny, who wants us to teach our children to fire weapons because eventually they might have to.

That's bullshit! Do not put false words into my mouth. Never once did I say we needed to "teach our children to fire weapons because eventually they might have to." I said parents should teach their children how to behave around guns and handle them safely. Because someday they will encounter one (the way you did), and when that day happens they need to know how to not accidentally blow somebody's head off.

Be a pacifist. You still need know how to handle a gun safely. Just like you teach children not to play with matches, you should teach them what to do if they're ever out playing with their friends and come across a gun.

Even if you don't have a swimming pool you still need to teach your child how to swim, because if they ever fall into a body of water when nobody's around you don't want them to drown. Do you?

You teach them not to be sexually promiscous (at least I hope you do). But even so, you should also teach them about safe sex, because if you don't they could contract a fatal STD.

Even if you have a teetotaler household you still need teach your children how to drink responsibly, and to not drink and drive. Because kids will be kids, and someday they will be out with their friends and they will experiment. Do you want them armed with information that can protect them, or do you want them ignorant and vulnerable?

But when it comes to guns you don't teach them anything except "guns are bad!" I guess you want them ignorant and vulnerable. Yet you call me sick.

Please be specific here: What part about teaching a child that guns are dangerous weapons and not toys is "teaching them how to shoot"?

Teaching a child, "If you ever have need to handle a gun, treat it as if it's loaded and dangerous. Don't put your finger on the trigger. Make sure you keep it pointed in a safe direction and don't wave it around or aim it at anybody," is not teaching them how to shoot! How on earth is that lesson sick???

What part about, "If you ever find a gun STOP. Don't touch it. Leave the area and tell an adult" is sick???

If you have children, have you ever given them these instructions? If not, then IMO you are derelict in your duties as a parent. If they ever find a gun or have need to handle one (as you did), you are putting them and everyone nearby at risk.

Good parenting requires not just telling a child something once, but repeating the lesson in various ways until it is ingrained in their "automatic pilot" system. Thus the "game" of identifying all the times people violate the 4 Rules of Firearm Safety on TV and in the movies. This game also teaches children that hollywood depictions of guns and gun violence should not be imitated. How is this sick?

Here's how politically correct, zealously guarded ignorance plays out in real life:

When he was teaching in South Side Chicago, my husband went into his school principal's office. The principal pulled a gun out of the drawer. It had been confiscated off a student. The principal hated guns so much that he had never learned how to handle them correctly. He pulled out this loaded gun, finger on the trigger, and pointed it at my husband as he was telling how it had been confiscated. He could have caused an accidental discharge and shot either my husband or someone on the other side of the wall!

My husband (after nearly sh*tting his pants) asked the principal to put the gun on the desk. Then he unloaded it, put it in a safe condition, and proceeded to show the principal how he had almost caused a tragedy. He offered to teach the 4 Rules of Firearm Safety to the school staff in case a similar incident happened again. He wanted to save lives. But the principal wouldn't allow it. He thought like you. Irrationally. The principal believed that a gun safety course would be promoting guns, and they couldn't do that because guns are bad!

I once had to give a talk to my technical writing class in community college. My chosen topic was "Gunproofing Your Children". The professor objected because she didn't want me "promoting guns". I pursuaded her to let me proceed, and told the class what I said in my earlier post- the stuff that you objected to.

One of the students in class was a police detective; he applauded when I finished. He told the professor that if every parent did as I suggested, lives would be saved.

[shiny!]

Re: Three questions: 1) Were automatic weapons used?

3) Since the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, should the
second amendment be repealed, or interpreted to be contingent on "in a well organized militia"?

3) There was no reason to get more specific about arms, as the real intent was to give the collective citizenry the power of military arms so they could not be easily subdued by force. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or self-defense, but of the legitimate concern that government of one kind or another would subdue the people with unreasonable and unjust demands.

Ghent12 is correct. The 2nd amendment reads:

"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."

Note the word is "regulated", not "organized". Words change their meaning over time. At the time the Bill of Rights was written, the word "regulated" in context with a firearm meant that it was accurate. A "well regulated militia" meant that the civilian members had accurate guns in good working order.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

BuckarooBanzai, please think like a grownup in your response.

You are obviously quite emotionally charged about this incident, but I would ask you to be careful in how you treat fellow forum members. Just because you feel strongly about a particular topic is no reason to belittle others who believe otherwise.

A valid argument could be made that your belief system is dangerously naive.

While I admire people who lead by example in leading pacifist lifestyles and attempt to develop utopic communities......I have a hard time respecting it as I strongly believe human nature prevents your desires from ever becoming reality.

But I ask you to enter the grownup mind of someone who has no interest, will, or knowledge of firearms.

And I ask you to recognize that there are grownup people out there with an interest, a will, and knowledge of and access to firearms with ill intent.

I ask you to recognize why we are all here on this forum. If the 4th Estate(a non-codified check/balance against a tyrannical government) had not been assimilated by the 2nd Estate then you, I and everyone else probably wouldn't be here because EJ would be on the major networks.

So we've lost the 4th Estate, and we're under increasing pressure to see the internet "regulated".

The 2nd Amendment is a codified check/balance against a tyrannical government, but everyone is focused on individual/familiar(and selfish) self defense.

The RIGHT to bear arms is effectively a 4th branch of government.


Does such a person have a place in this republic? Does the will of a person who is viscerally opposed to firearms, have no place in this discussion?

I have not heard this voice and claim it.

I don't care if it's a Sig Sauer or a .38 Special or an AR-15.

I simply don't want to live in a country where you - YOU, Buckaroo - or anyone - "grownup" or not - can buy it.

I also felt viscerally disgusted about a terribly corrupt political process, enough so that I moved. Maybe you should consider doing the same? I say that in all sincerity.

I'm on the radical left side of this debate, but we - the pacifists - can safely claim no political victories and no children's blood due to our beliefs.

And by laying claim to the hope without proof that comprehensive gun control(and banning in your own words) would maybe see less children's blood spilled, you are unwilling and/or unable to see the potentially very dangerous long-term political losses as a result of you actively contributing to the elimination of one of the few functional checks and balances remaining against tyranny.

Go ahead, justify the need for Bushmasters and Sig Sauers and Glocks in the hands of ordinary citizens, and not law enforcement officials and military.



That said, caliber needs to be considered. If y'all are so concerned that you need to be packing every time you go to the supermarket, then you should probably be packing .22s.

I assume this part is in humor/jest? Because it makes as much sense as me demanding a car mechanic to use only certain tools or for a plumber to use only certain plumbing tools.

In any case, I'm beginning to think that there are safer places to raise a family, like, maybe Afghanistan.

I've been to Afghanistan...very recently......and not living behind the wire, but working/living 24/7 with Afghans in what is considered to be one of the safer locations......but with the pending pullout of US forces the majority of the locals I work with, live with, and know are acquiring personal firearms again because of considerable long-term uncertainty.

EDIT: Oh, and please explain to me how more stringent gun laws would result in higher casualties because folks woudn't have weapons to draw at all times; because China has more stringent gun laws and just had a real similar attack, except no one died. Yeah, that's right, NO ONE DIED. Not one teacher. Not one student. Bunch of knife holes in them, but no one died.

I would not wish to live in China, I assume you wouldn't either?

I have two children, I wonder what the repercussions would be for us having our second child there? And the list goes on.

I've lived in the US, NZ, and a bunch of other places around the world(shorter duration of course).

I've legally owned firearms in the US and NZ, and I've carried them operationally in a few others.

Firearms are tools.......they aren't satanic objects possessed by the devil

There have been very few times in my life in the US where I felt the need to carry a concealed weapon...while I could legally, I would avoid those situations/locations.

To me, and many others, the 2nd Amendment is not so much about the right to individual self defense as it is a responsibility to provide a check/balance against tyranny.

300 million privately owned firearms backed up by a healthy number of well trained veteran citizen soldiers who swore an oath against all enemies foreign and domestic is the best insurance against domestic tyranny.

Before responding please think long and hard about what I stated before about the loss of the 4th Estate.

If the 4th Estate had not already been compromised, we would not be here because EJ would be on CNBC and not that muppet Jim Kramer.

[cbr]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I'm almost 40, a pacifist, and I've only held a gun once -- in taking it away from another who had it turned on himself. I have no desire to hold one again, and will never teach my children to hold one.

Call me what you will, but I'm an American disgraced by the fear and lack of civility in my country. All you military retirees fought real hard so I wouldn't have to hold a gun, right? So me and my family could have a safe place to live without being armed and on the ready? Isn't that freedom?

Freedom to me isn't having an armed guard everywhere I go. It's going without the need to be armed.

A well encapsulated train of thought that is morally defunkt, a classic and pathetic, totally hypocritical free rider, and one who, knowingly or not, wills a stalinist's agenda on the rest of us by default by the vote he should not be entitled to. maybe we get the full orwell today, maybe tomorrow.

people like you can only CHOOSE to be anti gun and a pacifist BECAUSE fair minded people with ethics, common sense, and weapons have CREATED the space for your decadent, miserably ridiculous blindness to all laws of nature and humanity.

as your wishes slowly continue come to fruit, you and your children will be among the grey blob of laboring subhuman muck that serves the power that be. the culture that colonized and created early north america was one of the milestone achievements in all of human history, and you are just another vandal of its tombstone. but don't worry, you'll probably still have your flat screen and suburbia house for a good while yet, as long as you strictly obey. unless of course some UNFAIR minded non pacifist takes it from you. before the cops arrive to 'help' you.

hint: if EVERYONE ON EARTH was a true pacifist, and we all took up knitting, ONE would look around and change his mind. And the rest are screwed.

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Is this report valid?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...ackamas-mall-d

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Is this report valid?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...ackamas-mall-d

It is being report as true by local media, though it boils down to Mr. Mali's unsubstantiated claim about where he was and what he did.

[lektrode]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

http://lewrockwell.com/sowell/sowell123.html

Ideas to avert further tragedies:

Some have proposed arming teachers. Of course many, being more liberal, dislike guns. Why no fill open teaching positions with out of work military veterans? They definitely have the training with weapons, and know how to tell enemy from friend.

The war on handguns is a war on women. How many women would be protected from rape and murder by having a small handgun in their purse.

Assault weapons and hgh capacity magazines are another matter. That will certainly be addressed soon. The desire for these weapons is driven by far more than the concern over protecting the home against criminals. It is driven by fear of tyrannny of a repressive dictatorship. Our country was populated by people fleeing repression and tyranny, and still is. Citizens fear government and crime.

+1
and as much as eye intended to stay OUT of this minefield - and HEY, LIGHTEN UP fer chrisakes, its the holidaze - theres at least one other thing thats even scarier about life in The USA today:

[jk]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

i don't think "assault rifles" are much different than other semi-automatic rifles except in appearance, but it seems appearances count, not just to the lawmakers but to some of the perpetrators of these crimes. why did this guy in newtown, and that guy in aurora, wear body armor? there was no firefight. the newtown guy apparently killed himself when police showed up. the aurora guy did not stand his ground and have a firefight. there's a quality of play acting here; playing dress-up. the columbine guys affected long, voluminous coats- a different image but the image was important to them.

who knows what motivates such people? [assuming they are not completely psychotic and motivated by beliefs entirely at odds with consensual reality.] my latest speculation about the newtown guy, after learning he'd destroyed the hard drive of his computer, is that he was addicted to child pornography, but it is likely we will never know.

the norwegian killer had a political motivation that is at least comprehensible, albeit reprehensible as well. his victims were not random in any sense, but carefully chosen. the aurora and newtown victims were not chosen except in the loosest sense, they were somehow symbols. so perhaps an "assault rife" ban would discourage some of the play acting at real murder.

as to the notion of domestic violent resistance to an american tyranny, it appears to me as mostly another form of play acting and dress up. the "militias" that occasionally make the news are small groups dressing up and playing soldier. there are many more individuals with fantasies of some future, hypothetical, american revolution 2.0, who arm themselves and fantasize about resistance, some combination of daniel boone and a liberterian che guevera.

this is not to dismiss the possibility of a future domestic tyranny. if such appears in my lifetime, i hope i will resist with whatever means i have, but i expect to die in the course of such resistance.

[lektrode]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

.... there's a quality of play acting here; playing dress-up. the columbine guys affected long, voluminous coats- a different image but the image was important to them.

who knows what motivates such people? [assuming they are not completely psychotic and motivated by beliefs entirely at odds with consensual reality.] my latest speculation about the newtown guy, after learning he'd destroyed the hard drive of his computer, is that he was addicted to child pornography, but it is likely we will never know.
....
this is not to dismiss the possibility of a future domestic tyranny. if such appears in my lifetime, i hope i will resist with whatever means i have, but i expect to die in the course of such resistance.

+1
i'm with you jk - but it would appear that we do know why and that this is an issue that concerns NOT GUN CONTROL - but how we deal with MENTAL ILLNESS in this country - and isnt hilarious how the reactionary liberals immediately JUMP TO THE WRONG CONCLUSION (not you jk) and want to slap another new law down on the table,
vs ENFORCE THE EXISTING ones

and - somewhat typically - look who comes up with The Most Likely Explanation:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18...adman-to-snap/

Fox EXCLUSIVE: Fear of being committed may have caused Connecticut gunman to snap


NEWTOWN, Conn. – The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.

Adam Lanza, 20, targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown after killing his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the school “more than she loved him,” said Joshua Flashman, 25, who grew up not far from where the shooting took place. Flashman, a U.S. Marine, is the son of a pastor at an area church where many of the victims' families worship.

“From what I've been told, Adam was aware of her petitioning the court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed," Flashman told FoxNews.com. "Adam was apparently very upset about this. He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry. I think this could have been it, what set him off.”
A senior law enforcement official involved in the investigation confirmed that Lanza's anger at his mother over plans for “his future mental health treatment” is being looked at as a possible motive for the deadly shooting.

Flashman was told Nancy Lanza had begun filing paperwork to get conservatorship over her troubled son, but that could not be confirmed because a court official told FoxNews.com such records are sealed. The move would have been necessary for her to gain the legal right to commit an adult to a hospital or psychiatric facility against his will. A competency hearing had not yet been held.

Adam Lanza attended the Sandy Hook School as a boy, according to Flashman, who said Nancy Lanza had volunteered there for several years. Two law enforcement sources said they believed Nancy Lanza had been volunteering with kindergartners at the school. Most of Lanza's victims were first graders sources believe Nancy Lanza may have worked with last year.

Flashman said Nancy Lanza was also good friends with the school’s principal and psychologist—both of whom were killed in the shooting rampage.

"Adam Lanza believed she cared more for the children than she did for him, and the reason he probably thought this [was the fact that] she was petitioning for conservatorship and wanted to have him committed," Flashman said. "I could understand how he might perceive that—that his mom loved him less than she loved the kids, loved the school. But she did love him. But he was a troubled kid and she probably just couldn’t take care of him by herself anymore."

The Washington Post reported that the distraught mother had considered moving with her son to Washington state, where she had found a school she thought could help him. Either way, according to Flashman, Nancy Lanza was at her wit's end.
A separate neighborhood source also told FoxNews.com that Nancy Lanza had come to the realization she could no longer handle her son alone. She was caring for him full-time, but told friends she needed help. She was planning to have him involuntarily hospitalized, according to the source, who did not know if she had taken formal steps.

Multiple sources told FoxNews.com Adam Lanza suffered from Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism, and unspecified mental and emotional problems.

Adam Lanza has also been described by those who knew him as highly intelligent, and a spokesman for Western Connecticut State University told The Associated Press he took college classes there when he was 16, earning a 3.26 grade point average and excelling at a computer course.

Alan Diaz, 20, who was friends with Adam Lanza at Newtown High School, said the Lanza he knew was ill-at-ease socially, but not a monster.

"He was a wicked smart kid," Diaz told FoxNews.com by email. "When I first met him, he wouldn't even look at you when you tried to talk to him. Over the year I knew him, he became used to me and my other friends, he eventually could have full conversations with us.

"I've heard him laugh, he has even comforted me once in a hard time I had," Diaz said. “A big part of me wishes I never dropped contact with him after he left high school, felt like I could have done something."

Flashman said nobody will completely understand why Adam did what he did.

“No one can explain Adam Lanza besides God and Adam Lanza, and I don’t even think Adam Lanza could explain Adam Lanza, to be honest with you.”

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

and that guy in aurora, wear body armor?

Just to be clear the "armor" used in Aurora was fake the guy used a shotgun as well as some sort of chemical grenade.


Beware, the "assualt rifle" issue will be hiding other legal land mines. No one can really think that a 10 round magazine ban will make much difference, even the proponents are not that stupid. They'll likely hide a lot of more insidious regulations in their bills.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

i don't think "assault rifles" are much different than other semi-automatic rifles except in appearance

More marketing terminology that anything.......If it can be called an "assault rifle" it could equally be called a "defense rifle". I'm quite surprised someone in the M&A/PR field sympathetic to the gun control cause hasn't helped the lobby come up with a name synonymous with murder rifle

the columbine guys affected long, voluminous coats- a different image but the image was important to them.

who knows what motivates such people? [assuming they are not completely psychotic and motivated by beliefs entirely at odds with consensual reality.] my latest speculation about the newtown guy, after learning he'd destroyed the hard drive of his computer, is that he was addicted to child pornography, but it is likely we will never know.

[b]I tend to think along the lines of what C1ue and others have posted and is well covered in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlF...layer_embedded

/b]

the norwegian killer had a political motivation that is at least comprehensible, albeit reprehensible as well. his victims were not random in any sense, but carefully chosen. the aurora and newtown victims were not chosen except in the loosest sense, they were somehow symbols. so perhaps an "assault rife" ban would discourage some of the play acting at real murder.

as to the notion of domestic violent resistance to an american tyranny, it appears to me as mostly another form of play acting and dress up. the "militias" that occasionally make the news are small groups dressing up and playing soldier. there are many more individuals with fantasies of some future, hypothetical, american revolution 2.0, who arm themselves and fantasize about resistance, some combination of daniel boone and a liberterian che guevera.

I think it would be prudent to remain open minded about exactly WHO takes the 2nd Amendment to heart and WHY.

It's not all about individual/selfish reasons for firearms ownership such as hunting target shooting or home defense.

It's about deterring tyranny.

And while there are plenty of muppets who are ignorant enough to allow themselves to be targeted and so easily portrayed as silly, dangerous, ridiculous, etc for public entertainment.....there are millions who would prefer to pretend they are Clark Kent, rather than Rambo.

this is not to dismiss the possibility of a future domestic tyranny. if such appears in my lifetime, i hope i will resist with whatever means i have, but i expect to die in the course of such resistance.

Then you may wish to acquaint yourself with local veterans at the VFW, or maybe try to meet some folks who are members of a local chapter of the SFA.

They would probably suggest that the best course of action is to aggressively defend against the infringement of a rather important check/balance against tyranny...especially in light of how other checks and balances have been suffering in recent decades.

I think they would also suggest that by having it(meaning right/responsibility of firearms ownership), we will hopefully never need it.......and that if we don't have it, we are far more likely to need it.....which is where the refreshing the tree of liberty part comes into play....but while those words sound nice the reality is quite nasty and we really don't want that, better to deter it and mitigate the risk of tyranny.

I think we can avoid tyranny...but it's going to require both aggressively defending inalienable rights....as well as admitting we outsourced our democracy to special interests who are probably quite determined not to give it back by us just asking nicely.

I think we are going to have to battle figuratively to get our democracy back........the only other option is to fight literally for it.....and I don't think anyone but a handful of crazy people really want that option.

There is a third option......and that is doing what the TV says and accept a false promise of safety in exchange for some more of our declining wealth of freedom.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." George S. Patton

[unlucky]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Not illegal, just heavily regulated.

Since the militia is supposed to be made up of individuals and since the second amendment was written for individuals it seems more than reasonable for the line to be drawn at crew served weapons. The militia are supposed to arm and train as individuals, hence individual weapons are appropriate.

Crew served weapons require a sophisticated logistical supply chain, teamwork and coordination with adjacent units. It's not reasonable to expect a "minute man" to show up for duty with a 27lb M-60 and 500 lbs of ammunition.



In fact, private corporations own and store and give "civilians" access to things that are, on the balance, the equivalent to RPGs and hand grenades. As Tim McV aptly demonstrated some of that stuff is quite dangerous, but isn't really relevant to the 2nd amendment. Somehow, corporations, though considered "people" by the supreme court, are granted far more privileges than real people when it comes to arms.

I guess those who are in favor of tighter gun control would like to draw the line based on trading off the right of individuals to own weapons, versus concerns about public safety. But many of those who are against gun control do not recognize the public safety concern as valid, and so look to draw the line based on interpretations of what consitutes a "mililtia" weapon under the 2nd amendment.