Opinion of Obama's gun speech today

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Gun control policy should reflect the original intent of the Founders. Accordingly, everyone should be allowed to own and openly carry as many muzzle-loading flintlock muskets as they would like.

The Constitution never explicitly says that people have a right to get abortions or a right to marry people of the same sex, but you folks on the left consider them constitutional rights regardless of that. How is the notion that the Constitution guarantees a right to own AR-15s (just to give an example of a modern gun) more absurd than the notion that it guarantees a right to get an abortion or guarantees two men a right to marry each other?

You sir are nuts.

When the Bill of Rights was ratified, all guns were military-style, so if anything a right to AR-15s is less permissive than it should be, since the common military infantryman uses an M-16.

Who cares??? What are you going to do with an AR-15 seriously?? You have got to know deep down if that gets in the wrong hands.... that's a bad idea. What's next Bazookas?!?

[RINO Tom]

Gun control policy should reflect the original intent of the Founders. Accordingly, everyone should be allowed to own and openly carry as many muzzle-loading flintlock muskets as they would like.

The Constitution never explicitly says that people have a right to get abortions or a right to marry people of the same sex, but you folks on the left consider them constitutional rights regardless of that. How is the notion that the Constitution guarantees a right to own AR-15s (just to give an example of a modern gun) more absurd than the notion that it guarantees a right to get an abortion or guarantees two men a right to marry each other?

You sir are nuts.

When the Bill of Rights was ratified, all guns were military-style, so if anything a right to AR-15s is less permissive than it should be, since the common military infantryman uses an M-16.

Who cares??? What are you going to do with an AR-15 seriously?? You have got to know deep down if that gets in the wrong hands.... that's a bad idea. What's next Bazookas?!?

Americans, even progressive ones.  So don't be offended if we keep not caring what Canadians think about our Constitution.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Gun control policy should reflect the original intent of the Founders. Accordingly, everyone should be allowed to own and openly carry as many muzzle-loading flintlock muskets as they would like.

The Constitution never explicitly says that people have a right to get abortions or a right to marry people of the same sex, but you folks on the left consider them constitutional rights regardless of that. How is the notion that the Constitution guarantees a right to own AR-15s (just to give an example of a modern gun) more absurd than the notion that it guarantees a right to get an abortion or guarantees two men a right to marry each other?

You sir are nuts.

When the Bill of Rights was ratified, all guns were military-style, so if anything a right to AR-15s is less permissive than it should be, since the common military infantryman uses an M-16.

Who cares??? What are you going to do with an AR-15 seriously?? You have got to know deep down if that gets in the wrong hands.... that's a bad idea. What's next Bazookas?!?

Americans, even progressive ones.  So don't be offended if we keep not caring what Canadians think about our Constitution.

It's an excuse that's what it is.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Gun control policy should reflect the original intent of the Founders. Accordingly, everyone should be allowed to own and openly carry as many muzzle-loading flintlock muskets as they would like.

The Constitution never explicitly says that people have a right to get abortions or a right to marry people of the same sex, but you folks on the left consider them constitutional rights regardless of that. How is the notion that the Constitution guarantees a right to own AR-15s (just to give an example of a modern gun) more absurd than the notion that it guarantees a right to get an abortion or guarantees two men a right to marry each other?

You sir are nuts.

When the Bill of Rights was ratified, all guns were military-style, so if anything a right to AR-15s is less permissive than it should be, since the common military infantryman uses an M-16.

Who cares??? What are you going to do with an AR-15 seriously?? You have got to know deep down if that gets in the wrong hands.... that's a bad idea. What's next Bazookas?!?

Americans, even progressive ones.  So don't be offended if we keep not caring what Canadians think about our Constitution.

It's an excuse that's what it is.

Run along now.  Gotta be on time to first period tomorrow!!

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Gun control policy should reflect the original intent of the Founders. Accordingly, everyone should be allowed to own and openly carry as many muzzle-loading flintlock muskets as they would like.

The Constitution never explicitly says that people have a right to get abortions or a right to marry people of the same sex, but you folks on the left consider them constitutional rights regardless of that. How is the notion that the Constitution guarantees a right to own AR-15s (just to give an example of a modern gun) more absurd than the notion that it guarantees a right to get an abortion or guarantees two men a right to marry each other?

You sir are nuts.

When the Bill of Rights was ratified, all guns were military-style, so if anything a right to AR-15s is less permissive than it should be, since the common military infantryman uses an M-16.

Who cares??? What are you going to do with an AR-15 seriously?? You have got to know deep down if that gets in the wrong hands.... that's a bad idea. What's next Bazookas?!?

Americans, even progressive ones.  So don't be offended if we keep not caring what Canadians think about our Constitution.

It's an excuse that's what it is.

Run along now.  Gotta be on time to first period tomorrow!!

I'm 21 idiot.

[Joe Republic]

^ We're on the same side here, friend, but please stop posting in this thread.  You're not helping.

[tschandler]

Gun control policy should reflect the original intent of the Founders. Accordingly, everyone should be allowed to own and openly carry as many muzzle-loading flintlock muskets as they would like.

The Constitution never explicitly says that people have a right to get abortions or a right to marry people of the same sex, but you folks on the left consider them constitutional rights regardless of that. How is the notion that the Constitution guarantees a right to own AR-15s (just to give an example of a modern gun) more absurd than the notion that it guarantees a right to get an abortion or guarantees two men a right to marry each other?

You sir are nuts.

When the Bill of Rights was ratified, all guns were military-style, so if anything a right to AR-15s is less permissive than it should be, since the common military infantryman uses an M-16.

Who cares??? What are you going to do with an AR-15 seriously?? You have got to know deep down if that gets in the wrong hands.... that's a bad idea. What's next Bazookas?!?

AR15's are great guns.  They are reliable, have infinite customization, and have a cool factor to them.  Being .223 caliber you can put a lot of practice rounds down range cheaper and with less wear and tear on your shoulder.   And they are also great coyote guns in particular.  But because the ATF legally only defines the action/lower of a gun as the legal "gun", my hunting rifle is legally the same type of rifle as an AR.  Both are semiautomatics.  My hunting rifle is a Remington 742 carbine in 30-06.  That is a much larger bullet than a normal AR fires.  My hunting rifle can also accommodate after market 10 round magazines.  Not for hunting (regulations limit those usually to 3 or 5) but to save reload times while practicing. 

[homelycooking]

How is the notion that the Constitution guarantees a right to own AR-15s (just to give an example of a modern gun) more absurd than the notion that it guarantees a right to get an abortion or guarantees two men a right to marry each other?

What exactly does an AR-15 accomplish that a musket doesn't?

[tschandler]

How is the notion that the Constitution guarantees a right to own AR-15s (just to give an example of a modern gun) more absurd than the notion that it guarantees a right to get an abortion or guarantees two men a right to marry each other?

What exactly does an AR-15 accomplish that a musket doesn't?

Self contained cartridges for one thing. 

[homelycooking]

So that you can fire and reload more quickly?

[tschandler]

So that you can fire and reload more quickly?

You can get better pressures at lower calibers with modern ammunition.  Cartridges have been around for over 200 years now. 

[homelycooking]

Why are those considerations (pressure, caliber, cartridges) important to you?

[tschandler]

Why are those considerations (pressure, caliber, cartridges) important to you?

Cartridges matter because Blackpowder/Muzzleloaders are a very specific hobby subculture that even it is dying out now.  These are some weirdly specific questions.

[homelycooking]

I'll state the question more clearly: Why does it matter to you how efficient or powerful a firearm is?

[dead0man]

Gun control policy should reflect the original intent of the Founders. Accordingly, everyone should be allowed to own and openly carry as many muzzle-loading flintlock muskets as they would like.

And should free speech only be applied to technologies available in the 1790s too?

How is the notion that the Constitution guarantees a right to own AR-15s (just to give an example of a modern gun) more absurd than the notion that it guarantees a right to get an abortion or guarantees two men a right to marry each other?

What exactly does an AR-15 accomplish that a musket doesn't?

What does a Ford Focus accomplish that Ford Model T doesn't?

[tschandler]

I'll state the question more clearly: Why does it matter to you how efficient or powerful a firearm is?

Because technology marches on.  There is a reason people hunt with guns more than they do spears or bows and arrows.  There are muzzleloader, archery, and spear hunters today but each of those are about specific challenges not really efficiency.   When hunting a common saying is "one shot, one kill".  It is efficient from an ammo standpoint as well as an ethical standpoint.  You don't want to cause an animal more pain than necessary.  You only take shots you know have a reasonable chance of a quick kill.  That is why you practice and aim for center mass.  In a well placed shot, a larger efficient bullet is going to increase the chance of hydro-static shock.   Hydro-static shock means a greater chance the animal is going to drop where it stands or run a short distance and drop.  Meaning it will be easier to find and the animal won't suffer. 

With self defense when the threshold has to be crossed to use deadly force efficiency also matters.  You are probably going to be nervous anyway so accuracy matters.  Also why you practice.  But if you do fire (99 percent of defensive gun use you never have to fire) you want the bullet to kill with one shot.  This is especially true if the assailant is armed themselves (which is the most common reason you would be using deadly force). 

[homelycooking]

If you were Clint Eastwood and your neighborhood was the set of a spaghetti Western, I could understand your concern about the ethos of "one shot, one kill". American mythology is founded on similar ideas of frontier masculinity and the trusty firearm with which the hero tames the hostile Frontier. People fantasize about being the protagonist, dealing out justice from the barrel of a Colt .45 (it's what's for dinner), and protecting themselves and their property from thieves and bandits. It seems to me that the decision to arm oneself depends more on the appeal of that script than on a reasonable threat assessment of the risks encountered whilst living in a suburban neighborhood.

People own guns for other reasons, though. I suppose that my neighbor's interest in and ownership of firearms is not that different from my other neighbor's interest in pre-decimal British coinage. From an engineering or historical standpoint, I understand why someone might want to explore how guns are manufactured or the roles they've played in American history. If my neighbor enjoys hunting game or harbors some private delusions about nocturnal marauders sacking our neighborhood, that's his business. I don't see why my one neighbor's hobby deserves Constitutional protection and the other's doesn't, though. 

That said, I'd prefer to live next to the neighbor who owns the expensive coin collection rather than one who fashions himself a "good guy" on the suburban frontier and maintains a private arsenal in his home. It just seems to me that there's a substantial risk of accidental or intentional harm (suicide, curious toddlers, domestic violence, etc.) inherent in owning an MR-15 that doesn't exist, say, in owning a 1914 King George VI silver threepence.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Obviously you've failed to consider the inherent choking hazard posed to a curious toddler by a silver threepence.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I don't see why my one neighbor's hobby deserves Constitutional protection and the other's doesn't, though. 

What if your hobby is composing music, or blogging, or photography, or painting murals outside, or performance art, or organizing political campaigns, or traveling, or hunting, or teaching children to speak a foreign language, or running a religious camp for teens on the weekend? Because all of these hobbies are constitutionally protected rights. (Hunting in many state constitutions anyway). Some hobbies receive constitutional protection because they involve the exercise of an actually recognized right. Performance art involves the right to speak, going to church functions involves the right to freely exercise religion and to peaceably assemble, and collecting guns involves the right to keep and bear arms. Guns aren't protected because they are a hobby, they are protected because they are a right. The fact that some people enjoy this right does not mean that it is somehow entitled to less protection.

[homelycooking]

Silver threepences don't kill people - people kill people.

[tschandler]

Fists kill more people a year than AR-15's and silver threepences do combined.

[Edu]

Fists kill more people a year than AR-15's and silver threepences do combined.

Completely agree with you, we should outlaw masturbation.

[Simfan34]

...a 1914 King George VI silver threepence.

An extremely rare coin, indeed! (Excellent post, it goes without saying)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Problem for Dems is that concealed carry is making its way all over Appalachia, which is turning out to not bold well for Dems across board in that region, exceot for Philly, of course.