Darn max, I was wondering if Mr. sanmo could actually tell us about the mental health thing or if he was stuck on talking points.

.....
So military veterans should have more rights than other citizens?

They also didn't have electricity, phones, TV, Internet, tasers, cars, motorcycles, tear gas, hedge funds, nuclear weapons, or vaccines.  So far, I think the Constitution has stood the test of time well, even though it is often ignored or corrupted.  The AR-15 is the musket of our time, just like a 15 round semi-automatic handgun is the blunderbuss/Duval/Sharpe pistol of our time, just like the car is the horse and carriage of our time.  Free speech on the Internet is protected now the same as on parchment paper hundreds of years ago.  During THEIR time, their guns were the most dangerous personal/common weapon they would encounter on the streets.  You will note the Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" it doesn't say "to keep and bear arms only of the type or power of this writing."

In this matter, I trust military veterans to have the proper moral compass and training needed for responsible gun ownership. Remember the "well regulated militia" aspect of the Second Amendment?

What do any of the wonderful (and not so wonderful) innovations that you enumerated have to do with interfering with the benefits of the Bill of Rights. If the US Constitution is a living document the right conferred to bear arms should not be an unfettered right. Cigarettes are not illegal today solely because they have been in use for centuries. Knowing what we now know about its harmful effects, it would be banned if attempted to introduce it as a new product today.

What sort of motorcycle riding requires 0-60 in 3 seconds?
What sort of car driving requires cruise control?
What sort of house living requires 3 bathrooms?

Meaningless analogies and I can give trite answers to each of them. You did not answer my question.

Which would be what?  The infamous "gun show loophole"??  I would be glad to shred that to pieces with facts and statistics, if needed...

Private sales on the internet. For example, the Las Vegas gunman was able to illegally purchase armor-piercing bullets and the vendor got nabbed only because his fingerprints were found on the shipment.

I can tell you are completely unfamiliar with what was done, why people are upset, and why it is being done away with.  If a veteran had their income check sent to someone else that helps with managing their finances, THAT WAS BEING REPORTED AS MENTAL ILLNESS!  And to add insult to injury, there was no due process in removing someone's Constitutionally guaranteed rights!

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444582/no-gop-did-not-just-repeal-background-check-system-or-give-guns-mentally-il

If a SS recepient (not just a veteran) had their finances being managed due to a mental impairment then they would get flagged. By pushing veterans as the rallying point, the entire "mentally ill" restriction was rolled back?

If they can do that, what is next on the list of "mental illness?"  Telling your doctor you are depressed?  Frustrated?  Tired?  Telling a nurse?  Telling a healthcare clerk?

What DOES constitute "mental illness" is being in a mental hospital or being actually CLINICALLY diagnosed with a RECOGNIZED mental illness by a competent doctor.  But that isn't what was happening.

Ahh.....the familiar slippery slope argument.

In this matter, I trust military veterans to have the proper moral compass and training needed for responsible gun ownership. Remember the "well regulated militia" aspect of the Second Amendment?

What do any of the wonderful (and not so wonderful) innovations that you enumerated have to do with interfering with the benefits of the Bill of Rights. If the US Constitution is a living document the right conferred to bear arms should not be an unfettered right. Cigarettes are not illegal today solely because they have been in use for centuries. Knowing what we now know about its harmful effects, it would be banned if attempted to introduce it as a new product today.

Cigarettes don't kill people ... people kill people!

Wait ... cigarettes do kill people ... we must BAN them to save people from harming themselves.   

Knowing what we now know about its harmful effects, it would be banned if attempted to introduce it as a new product today.

Then there was the invention of the E-Cigarette introducing a brand new way to ingest nicotine and kill ourselves.   

Private sales on the internet. For example, the Las Vegas gunman was able to illegally purchase armor-piercing bullets and the vendor got nabbed only because his fingerprints were found on the shipment.

sanmo, could you point out to us, any of our current gun laws, or any you would like to have added that would have stopped that ILLEGAL purchase.

In this matter, I trust military veterans to have the proper moral compass and training needed for responsible gun ownership. Remember the "well regulated militia" aspect of the Second Amendment?

That's a very good point that's often overlooked.


So what is the definition of "militia"

"(in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=militia&oq=militia&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8



Ok so maybe a good starting point is to remove weapons from anybody who isn't eligible by law for military service.


That's fully in line with the word & spirit of the second amendment isn't it ?


Problem is as I read it the only legal requirement to join the US Military is  that ", you must either be a US citizen, or you must be a legal permanent immigrant, physically living in the United States, with a green card."  so actually that's probably a non starter

https://www.thebalance.com/us-military-enlistment-standards-3354003

Ok one that might offend a a group is to automatically exclude anyone who is not "able bodied" from owning a firearm as by the definition at the top  they are not eligible to join a Militia


And then I started thinking, is there a legal definition the the US Codes about what a Militia is and it turns out there is

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

Edit Insert : Ah I found the Dick Act as well in relation to legal definition of the US Militia

Ok so  to summarise the 2nd amendments states that for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia that citizens can keep & bear arms.

Given that by US definition to be a member of the Militia in  the US you have to be male & between 17 & 45 or female and in the National Guard.

Nobody else should need to own or keep firearms , so sorry Brian etc, Hand em in as the Rule books say you don't need them


Footnote , there is a proviso to the Age requirement which extends the Age limit to 64 for former regular members of the US Armed forces so basically nobody male  under the age of 17 or over 45 (64 for ex Forces regulars) thjat is not able bodied or any females not a member of the National Guard   has the right to keep a firearm as by definition in the USC they cannot be a Member of the Militia

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/313

In this matter, I trust military veterans to have the proper moral compass and training needed for responsible gun ownership.

Really?  Just like police?  Did you read my previous posting about that topic?  So the government should grant itself (remember, military and police are employees and thus part of the government) more rights than the citizens they are suppose to serve?

Remember the "well regulated militia" aspect of the Second Amendment?

That is a preamble and has nothing to do with the right.  Almost every Constitutional scholar and the Supreme court, agree on that.

What do any of the wonderful (and not so wonderful) innovations that you enumerated have to do with interfering with the benefits of the Bill of Rights. If the US Constitution is a living document

The the US Constitution is NOT a "living document."  The way it is supposed to change is only through Constitutional Amendment.  Not the whims of the time.

That is a preamble and has nothing to do with the right.  Almost every Constitutional scholar and the Supreme court, agree on that.

The 2nd Amendment as ratified is one sentence. To be preamble it would need to consist of one or more sentences or paragraphs.


However I'm sure somebody wll pop up with the relevant judgements at some point


"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."


Edit

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Meaningless analogies and I can give trite answers to each of them. You did not answer my question.

Actually, I did.

Private sales on the internet

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/07/report-federal-agents-try-show-ease-illegal-online-gun-purchases-fail-72-attempts-2-years/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/3/most-illegal-attempts-to-buy-guns-online-fail/
https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/05/gao-agents-tried-72-times-failed-to-buy

If a SS recepient (not just a veteran) had their finances being managed due to a mental impairment then they would get flagged. By pushing veterans as the rallying point, the entire "mentally ill" restriction was rolled back?

If a law/procedure/regulation is that fragile/bad/poor/unfair/abusive/unconsitutional then yes, it needs to be rolled back.  Perhaps a different law/procedure/regulation could be put in place.  Many alternatives have been offered, those with appropriate procedures, safeguards, definitions, and due process.

Ahh.....the familiar slippery slope argument.

Ahh, the familiar dismissal of another, actual example of how a law WAS used incorrectly and DID create a slippery slope.

For example, the Las Vegas gunman was able to illegally purchase armor-piercing bullets and the vendor got nabbed only because his fingerprints were found on the shipment.

Do you have a link to this? I'd like to know more about illegal "armor-piercing" .223 bullets. I could be wrong but I don't think such a thing exists. Regular ball ammo might be considered  "armor-piercing" because it doesn't mushroom as much as a hollow point or soft point. And I suppose some states have some sort of ban on them but not Colorado or Texas. I know NJ has a ban on hollow points, but that is the exact opposite of armor-piercing. But don't you gun control types want to ban hollow point as well as "armor-piercing"? Wouldn't that be a total ban on ammunition?

Also, almost any centerfire rifle ammo will penetrate kevlar body armor without military ceramic plates. Therefor wouldn't all hunting ammo be considered "armor-piercing"?

Do you have a link to this? I'd like to know more about illegal "armor-piercing" .223 bullets. I could be wrong but I don't think such a thing exists. Regular ball ammo might be considered  "armor-piercing" because it doesn't mushroom as much as a hollow point or soft point. And I suppose some states have some sort of ban on them but not Colorado or Texas. I know NJ has a ban on hollow points, but that is the exact opposite of armor-piercing. But don't you gun control types want to ban hollow point as well as "armor-piercing"? Wouldn't that be a total ban on ammunition?

Also, almost any centerfire rifle ammo will penetrate kevlar body armor without military ceramic plates. Therefor wouldn't all hunting ammo be considered "armor-piercing"?

.223 caliber was the only weapon in Paddock's arsenal?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-las-vegas-shooting-ammunition-seller-20180202-story.html

I do not know if this is unique to us "gun control types", but I was sickened to see pics of the PoS from the Parkland shooting being arraigned with his public defender appearing to comfort him with her arm over his shoulder. Is that part of the job or did her maternal instincts kick into high gear?

.223 caliber was the only weapon in Paddock's arsenal?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-las-vegas-shooting-ammunition-seller-20180202-story.html

Interesting article. I notice they don't give any details of what the armor piercing ammo was. They say something of an "incendiary capsule" on their noses. Tracer bullets have the incendiary charge in the tail which is ignited from the propellent. Yes I have seen .223 tracers. But neither are illegal in Colorado or Texas. Definitely illegal to fire a tracer on all public property due to fire danger. I have fired .50 calibre API "armor piercing incendiary" ammo in Colorado on a private range. There were multiple law enforcement officers there. It's not illegal. I have a lot of questions for the whole article.

This is something I have seen numerous times in the press. Things like "didn't have a license for the gun" and "had explosives in the house". In most states there is no such thing as a license to own a gun. And is perfectly legal to use muzzle loaders which use black powder. Perfectly legal to reload your own ammo using smokeless powder. Perfectly legal to have fertilizer. This is what a lot of lazy reporters do, they setup straw men to push an agenda.

I do not know if this is unique to us "gun control types", but I was sickened to see pics of the PoS from the Parkland shooting being arraigned with his public defender appearing to comfort him with her arm over his shoulder. Is that part of the job or did her maternal instincts kick into high gear?

It looked like she was trying to set the framework for having the killer be perceived as a victim.

I do not know if this is unique to us "gun control types", but I was sickened to see pics of the PoS from the Parkland shooting being arraigned with his public defender appearing to comfort him with her arm over his shoulder. Is that part of the job or did her maternal instincts kick into high gear?

Sickened me as well. I have first hand experience with this behavior. A man that premeditatedly murdered 2 people and a lawyer and social worker fawning over him like he was the victim. 

I believe the way it is being reported, and the wording of the charge against the ammunition seller is leading to incorrect conclusions: as far as I know, he was not charged because the ammunition was armor piercing or tracer types but because he was 'manufacturing and selling ammunition without a manufacturing license', which is illegal in and of itself. So perfectly legal ammunition is illegal if made (loaded or re-loaded) by anyone who is not properly licensed.

As to the AP aspects; military 5.56 AP is perfectly legal for civilian purchase, possession and use, at THIS time. It has been illegal in the past, perhaps during more than one time- period but I am going by memory here. Either way, it is readily available to anyone is the US unless it is illegal in some states. It is readily identified by the green tip of the projectile.

The ammunition seller is an engineer for Honeywell BTW and not what anyone (or most at least) would think of as a criminal but he did violate a technical 'fine line' of the law, has been charged, and will almost certainly be prosecuted because of the nature of the Las Vegas crime. In extreme situations, anyone and everyone around the periphery of the actual event falls under scrutiny and the most intensive persecut..... er, I mean prosecution imaginable. And this has nothing to do with firearms but any event seen as a tragedy, such as 'The Station' nightclub fire, which is just a couple of miles away from me. 

As to the soft-points or hollow-points, I do not <believe> they are legal anywhere in the US with hollow-points commonly used for target shooting, especially long distance target shooting (they are the type of projectile that is the most inherently accurate), and soft point ammunition being used for hunting almost in all cases, at least in rifle calibers.

Brian

Do you have a link to this? I'd like to know more about illegal "armor-piercing" .223 bullets. I could be wrong but I don't think such a thing exists. Regular ball ammo might be considered  "armor-piercing" because it doesn't mushroom as much as a hollow point or soft point. And I suppose some states have some sort of ban on them but not Colorado or Texas. I know NJ has a ban on hollow points, but that is the exact opposite of armor-piercing. But don't you gun control types want to ban hollow point as well as "armor-piercing"? Wouldn't that be a total ban on ammunition?

Also, almost any centerfire rifle ammo will penetrate kevlar body armor without military ceramic plates. Therefor wouldn't all hunting ammo be considered "armor-piercing"?

Your second point is not correct- the ammunition was only illegal to be purchased because it was allegedly 'manufactured' (reloaded apparently) by a person who was not licensed to manufacture ammunition. The ammunition itself was and is legal to the best of my knowledge, and would remain perfectly legal had it been reloaded by the end user himself.

As to your third point, yes, the attempt to block S.S. recipients who had their allotments directly sent to someone else on their behalf due to them not being competent or able to receive the payments directly was attacked as 'the government wants to ban guns for the elderly' (or perhaps 'the retired', or even 'those receiving Social Security). It was skewed, and apparently on purpose. The right uses the identical techniques to resist new anti- gun legislation that the left does in trying to get it passed, such as trying to show that some surrounding, related events, such as the purchase of "armor piercing ammunition" is illegal. Same game, different slants.

I agree with your last statement: there is no slippery slope here, just a sheer drop- off into an illegal abyss of unilateral personal disarmament of all citizens. Or were you not addressing the anti- gun agenda?

Brian

Meaningless analogies and I can give trite answers to each of them. You did not answer my question.

Private sales on the internet. For example, the Las Vegas gunman was able to illegally purchase armor-piercing bullets and the vendor got nabbed only because his fingerprints were found on the shipment.

If a SS recepient (not just a veteran) had their finances being managed due to a mental impairment then they would get flagged. By pushing veterans as the rallying point, the entire "mentally ill" restriction was rolled back?

Ahh.....the familiar slippery slope argument.

We do not know, no- one knows as far as I can tell. We do not know what the author(s) of that Amendment meant with certainty.

It is a poorly written set of words to be sure though and requires interpretation and 'perceived implication' to actually try and use or apply it.

Some Constitutional scholars claim that the first part of Amendments like the second one (many are written in such ways as to make them confusing as to scope, intent and so forth) is the explanation for its existence while the second part is the actual intent. Others disagree. Some also take it to be applied literally, such as the interpretation of the word 'arms', while others think it has a limited application. Certainly on some level is IS limited because no private person could own 'any' "arms", such as a biological or nuclear device that could be used as a weapon. A wealthy person could certainly afford to purchase an F 22 Raptor, for example, but it is unlikely that that would actually be allowed to happen. Further, if the aircraft <could> be purchased and posessed by a private person, it certainly could NOT be outfitted with a full weapons compliment, especially if any of those weapons might be nuclear. It is usually stated by the umbrella statement that the Constitution (with its Amendments) is not a suicide pact, which of course makes good sense.

At any rate the Second Amendment of our Constitution is most certainly 'infringed' in many different ways starting with the types of 'arms' we can posess, then moving onto who may NOT posess them (felons, those duly adjudicated mentally incompetent, those dishonorably discharged from any US service, etc.) and so forth. So to take the words literally is impossible first because of how they are written, and secondly because that Amendment has effectively been violated many times, in many ways, since 1934 at least (when the National Firearms Act was passed) if not earlier in some locations (carrying a firearm in NYC, for example, has been illegal for a long time now).

We need an entire branch of our government to try an figure out the answers to these questions virtually continuously, and they cannot come to an easy conclusion, in fact, they are usually split 5 to 4 on ANY answer they issue on this topic (speaking of the Supreme Court here).

Brian

That's a very good point that's often overlooked.


So what is the definition of "militia"

"(in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=militia&oq=militia&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8



Ok so maybe a good starting point is to remove weapons from anybody who isn't eligible by law for military service.


That's fully in line with the word & spirit of the second amendment isn't it ?

<snip>

How sad.


It appears there was uniformed, trained & armed "good guy" on the school Campus who was outside the building and yet did not intervene.


Could  he have made a difference? Well his boss (the Sheriff) seems to think so.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43164634

sad

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
 Martin Luther King, Jr.