are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

[sigcurious]

There are at least 3 blatant problems with the "military qualifies people or vets them as stable" argument that Uncle Billy is making. Lee Harvey Oswald, Marine, Charles Whitman, Marine, Nidal Malik Hassan, Army Major and psychiatrist.

They all met the requirements of the military, they all committed atrocities. One of them even was a mental health professional. These are only the high profile shooters, not to mention the countless other people who had been in or were in the military when committing crimes that would seemingly indicate the lack of "discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence".

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

Light, easy to handle even with one hand while engaged in the athletics of "boots on the ground" combat, lethal but low recoil caliber to maintain aim while shooting in dynamic situations, at least semi automatic for rapid fire, large capacity magazine avoiding having to reload at short intervals, all collected in one weapon meant to engage with numerous armed enemy personnel equally or better equipped.

So almost every semiautomatic firearm known to man . . .

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

Yes it certainly is, but weapons meant for small unit combat against numerous armed enemies aren't required, there are other less competent crowd-killers that are still competent anti-personnel weapons in personal defense situations. I have a number of them, and I'm licensed to CC in New York. A private citizen will probably never have to defend his home or self from attack by an enemy patrol armed with military small arms.

So you'll at least concede there is some legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that at least requires firearms, even if you disagree as to what is needed? As to what types of firearms are needed, do all criminals in NY stick to single-criminal activities, or have they been known to commit crimes in larger groups? Are those larger groups occasionally armed?

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

. . . .A private citizen will probably never have to defend his home or self from attack by an enemy patrol armed with military small arms.

You're right, but so what? I hope that I never, as long as I live, have to defend my home or family against any sort of armed attack. It does not follow, however, that I should be prohibited from possessing effective tools for doing so, based on the actions of third parties.

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

Anyone who has not met the military's requirements to demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence to have access to weaponry with capabilities (save full-auto fire which is an insignificant difference when assaulting unarmed unprepared unaware targets like 6-year-olds) identical to the military's combat weaponry.

This sounds awfully close to "only the police and military should have guns."

[Spats McGee]

Glenn -- On the gang members, I note that the article that you linked states:

Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed filed a petition Thursday seeking a temporary restraining order — a civil court measure — against 16 documented members of various sects of the “Bloods” gang.

So these are "documented members" of the Bloods gang. What we don't know is what "documented" means. Have they been convicted of gang-related crimes? Are they felons? I don't know the answer to those questions, but they do have a bearing on the permissibility of a prohibition on their assembly. Arguably, if they're convicted felons and known gang members, they're not exercising a right to peacably assemble, they're assembling for criminal purposes.

[spaniel]

"Anyone who has not met the military's requirements to demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence to have access to weaponry with capabilities (save full-auto fire which is an insignificant difference when assaulting unarmed unprepared unaware targets like 6-year-olds) identical to the military's combat weaponry."

The only person ever to deliberately point a gun at my head was a high school classmate who subsequently went into the Marines. The rumor at the time was that it was a deal cut to avoid serving time for the multiple crimes he had already committed. He was in prison within two years of getting out of the service.

What about the several who have deliberately gone around killing Afghan civilians?

Spare me.

Mentally unstable or ill people should not have firearms, IMHO. But we need to be very thoughtful and explicit on how that is determined, otherwise it is just another tool to be manipulated by the antis to nefariously limit ownership.

And as for training classes, I believe Chicago has now gone to requiring a training class, but does not allow them to be held in Chicago. Like the honest poor people in the South Side, the ones who really need to defend themselves the most, have the resources to both pay for the class and find a way to get 40 miles out into the suburbs to attend one. The politicians know this.

[spaniel]

I think it should be blindingly obvious that the root cause is cultural. The guns in question have been around for roughly 50 years yet these mass shootings have become common only recently. But don't try to bother those acting on blind emotion thinking they live in Pollyana-land with annoying facts or basic, common sense reasoning.

[BGutzman]

There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

The lethal potential of such weapons in the hands of people who have access to them without having to pass through the military's filters of discipline, mental stability, a sense of responsibility and situation-determined use of such weapons limited only to armed combat or training for such combat, is and has been well demonstrated by the intended wanton murder of innocents.

The conclusion is that such weapons in such inappropriate hands in non-combat situations present an unnecessary risk to the public at large, substantiated by the numbers of deaths such inappropriate situations have resulted in.

Your entitled to your opinion but history does not share your opinion. The 2A was specifically so you could provide for your family, your defense, the defense of our nation and ultimately overthrow any government that became tyrannical. See the Declaration of Independence if you have even the slightest doubt. See the quotes by George Washington and the other founding fathers, there is no room for doubt. The founding fathers IMHO though that weapons could be restricted in churches and a few other places but in general weren't regulated. If you wanted to own cannon, or blunderbuss or swords or knives it was up to the citizen.

Your also off base on military training and stability. I spent a majority of my adult life in active military service and I can tell you the military has its share of ill people. I even had a military roommate once who the shrink said to never bring back to her office without a armed escort. My roommate was very bizarre and yet it still took 6 months to identify he was sick and then thankfully he was put out in weeks. I have seen many sick people identified and put out over the years and many more who I thought needed treatment. (Im no doctor)

My overall point is the Bill of Rights is very clear that the right to keep and bear arms is not limited to military and SCOTUS has recently ruled that we citizens have a right to defense... Group violence does exist... some future government may be tyrannical.. for all these reasons we have a right to military grade weapons.

[K_Mac]

Using the tenets of critical thinking, that is, reasoning without including emotion (sorrow and rage at the deaths of children; passion for guns that transcends compromise and resists regulation or denial of access to them in disregard for the risks they bring in unqualified hands) leads to these conclusions:

There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

The lethal potential of such weapons in the hands of people who have access to them without having to pass through the military's filters of discipline, mental stability, a sense of responsibility and situation-determined use of such weapons limited only to armed combat or training for such combat, is and has been well demonstrated by the intended wanton murder of innocents.

The conclusion is that such weapons in such inappropriate hands in non-combat situations present an unnecessary risk to the public at large, substantiated by the numbers of deaths such inappropriate situations have resulted in.

I have read and heard some version of this argument stated many times over the last few days. I will add my two cents worth:

1. If my reading of the 2A and the writings of the Founding Fathers is correct, then firearms with the "specific collected attributes" mentioned are exactly what they had in mind when the Bill of Rights was passed. Our right to keep and bear arms was premised on the belief that the people have the right to defend against any threat to liberty, whether foreign or domestic. The notion that an AR15 with a 30 rnd magazine is too dangerous for law abiding citizens to own is contrary to that principle.

2. Any weapon in the wrong hands represents a risk to the public at large. That is an uncomfortable reality that will not change by additional laws restricting or banning firearms.

3. Vetting firearms owners to determine mental stability, discipline, and responsibility is a tricky thing in a free nation. The increase of violence and mental health issues, financial and political uncertainty, and the break down of societal norms in general all contribute to a world that is a dangerous place. That is an uncomfortable reality that will not change by additional laws restricting or banning firearms.

Many more have died from wanton use of combat arms in civilian hands than from trucks full of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane.

4. I challenge you to provide evidence to support this statement unless you expand combat weapons to include all semiauto weapons, including handguns. The problem is we are talking about criminals who cannot legally own guns now (see point number two). Restricting or banning firearms will not change this reality and violates the 2A (see point number one).

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

Light, easy to handle even with one hand while engaged in the athletics of "boots on the ground" combat, lethal but low recoil caliber to maintain aim while shooting in dynamic situations, at least semi automatic for rapid fire, large capacity magazine avoiding having to reload at short intervals, all collected in one weapon meant to engage with numerous armed enemy personnel equally or better equipped.

So you only want to disarm civilians from owning effective firearms. That's not authoritarian at all.

Yes it certainly is, but weapons meant for small unit combat against numerous armed enemies aren't required, there are other less competent crowd-killers that are still competent anti-personnel weapons in personal defense situations.

The concept of need is entirely irrelevant to a right.
You fail define crowd-killers.
I would like you to google revolver speedloaders and stripper clips and then tell me that someone truly bent on destruction can't use whatever means necessary.

I have a number of them, and I'm licensed to CC in New York.

Appeal to authority, logical fallacy.

A private citizen will probably never have to defend his home or self from attack by an enemy patrol armed with military small arms.

irrelevant

If the military demands that its recruits demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence before they are handed an M-16 of their own, and limits their use of their weapons to combat situations, what makes it reasonable that there's no such requirements on civilians who want to possess and control exactly identical firepower?

So someone should decide for an individual and autonomous citizen their own capability based on a centralized and politicized program meant for warfare? Not only do crazy people slip through the cracks as already established, but more importantly a lot of the screening process is to stem lawsuits.

You can't legally fly an FA-18 with a loaded and armed M61 Vulcan aboard by just buying one no matter how much money you have.

Completely irrelevant. One is a small firearm and the other is a plane. The M61 Vulcan attached to it is a separate issue to the comparison as well.

So what? Many more have died from wanton use of combat arms in civilian hands than from trucks full of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane.

More people die from overeating, smoking, drinking, automobiles, and .22lr caliber firearms.
Do you want to ban .22's?

Anyone who has not met the military's requirements to demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence to have access to weaponry with capabilities (save full-auto fire which is an insignificant difference when assaulting unarmed unprepared unaware targets like 6-year-olds) identical to the military's combat weaponry.

Military state. That's good.
I really hope I dont need to explain why this is bad

[Uncle Billy]

None of the "logic" behind your conclusions is spelled out.

I wrote: There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

Reasoning: In civilian life there are no hunting or defense situations that require a light, easily handled low recoil semiautomatic weapon with large on-board ammunition capacity, both of those uses for guns are equally or better met by guns less focused on quick, accurate mass killing. What's left are recreation, entertainments, in short, hobbies - targets, combat arms competitions, collections, re-creation of modern combat dress and equipment. etc. Justifying unlimited access to M-16- like capabilities at mass killing to maintain a hobby is nearly pathological indifference to the harm such weapons can do when the hobby gets out of hand. Too bad you can't ask Mrs. Lanza whether she agrees.

I wrote: The lethal potential of such weapons in the hands of people who have access to them without having to pass through the military's filters of discipline, mental stability, a sense of responsibility and situation-determined use of such weapons limited only to armed combat or training for such combat, is and has been well demonstrated by the intended wanton murder of innocents.

Reasoning: The weapons and their imitators and clones are made to be lethal in combat situations where quick, accurate killing fire is available to engage with and eliminate multiple personnel. No one has to go through combat arms training and psychological assessment, which would filter out those not mentally equipped to handle that firepower to access them in the civilian world.

What is the source of your definition, besides making a definition that fits your forgone conclusion?

The source of my definition is an accurate analysis of what missions modern combat weapons were designed and built to perform, and one thoughtful, unemotional look at them points out the attributes they were built to have that meet that mission. There are obvious reasons why the arms of an infantry platoon aren't Model 94s or M-1s or Remington shotguns or M-1 carbines. Any effort to make M-16s and their clones and imitators disappear among hunting rifles and target rifles will fail even when done to an uninformed public. Those of us who have spent a lifetime with guns of all sorts ought to be able to see the differences (caliber is NOT among the differences) and clearly understand the mission the combat weapons were designed to meet that hunters and target shooters can't perform.

So almost every semiautomatic firearm known to man . . .

I have a number of semi auto rifles none of which meet all the parameters that M-16-configured rifles do. None of them, for example, have or need large capacity magazines to meet their intended uses including defense, only one has a pistol-grip stock but it fires .22 LR cartridges which aren't nearly as deadly as .223s are; if they were there would be no need for the increased power, bullet mass and thus the downrange energy of 5.56X45s or other light but lethal calibers.

So you'll at least concede there is some legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that at least requires firearms, even if you disagree as to what is needed?

Absolutely. I carry a Ruger LC9, a S&W Model 36, a Walther PP in .32 or a Baretta 21A when I carry; I have a Rossi open-choked 12 Gauge double and a loaded .44 Magnum Ruger Super Blackhawk in the bedroom (no kids in there); I have a family heirloom Model 94 and a .30-'06 BSA barrelled action in a stock I carved from a Rienhart-Fagen blank for deer, a pre- '64 Model 70 in .300 H&H Magnum if I ever get the chance to go for elk or moose, a Model 12 trap gun for pheasant and other upland birds (ok, hunting is recreation but it also provides healthy "organic" meat and I won't shoot anything we can't eat); none of these are better met by a modern military combat weapon or a weapon copying all of its functions.

This sounds awfully close to "only the police and military should have guns."

Only if you're trying to hide modern combat weapons or their clones or imitators among all other guns. It ought to sound exactly like "Only police and military should have modern combat weapons or their clones or imitators".

Restricting or banning firearms will not change this reality and violates the 2A

Not all weapons, just those that in the wrong hands present a unique and greatly increased hazard to innocent civilians. Machine guns have been so designated, why is there no big push to get them legalized? Trying to scare gun owners into believing that ownership of all guns is at risk is no less ridiculous than claiming that no one ought to own any weapon.

[BGutzman]

Reasoning: In civilian life there are no hunting or defense situations that require a light, easily handled low recoil semiautomatic weapon with large on-board ammunition capacity, both of those uses for guns are equally or better met by guns less focused on quick, accurate mass killing. What's left are recreation, entertainments, in short, hobbies - targets, combat arms competitions, collections, re-creation of modern combat dress and equipment. etc. Justifying unlimited access to M-16- like capabilities at mass killing to maintain a hobby is nearly pathological indifference to the harm such weapons can do when the hobby gets out of hand. Too bad you can't ask Mrs. Lanza whether she agrees.

Really? Interesting because when Hurricane Katrina and Rita destroyed the areas around my home and then my town reality was far different that what you are saying.... We had reports of people killing people simply to get a vehicle with gas and trucks were high on the priority list. So we had a whole city and dozens of towns that were all trying to get out of plugged artery roads... No AC in Louisiana heat, people fist fighting in stores over crazy things that couldn't even help them survive it was pandemonium. All manner of infrastructure broken or down, no water, no sewer.... And now in your dreams you say Id have no right to a high capacity weapon?????

Not to mention as I have already said the historical requirement and necessity of having arms necessary to fight some future tyrannical government...

And lets get real about it... the only difference between a traditional semi auto hunting rifle and a AR is:

1. Traditional hunting rifles tend to be much more powerful than the 5.56mm.
2. The AR has mean looking plastic and places to hang things off of..

[Uncle Billy]

So you only want to disarm civilians from owning effective firearms.

Effective firearms in civilian situations don't need to be as efficient as modern combat weapons are at killing a lot of targets in a short period of time, it is unlikely in the extreme that any civilian will be presented with a threat that requires the capability to kill or injure multiple attackers of enough number that a large capacity magazine is necessary. Six shot revolvers with practiced use of Speedloaders or 7 or 8 round magazines in semi auto rifles or handguns is enough to defend against any threatening situation reasonably apt to occur.

The concept of need is entirely irrelevant to a right.

The right is to defend one's self with firearms. There are plenty of firearms that meet that objective that aren't capable in the wrong hands of killing a lot of targets in a short period of time, unnecessary for personal defense in any probable scenario in civilian life.

You fail define crowd-killers.

A "crowd killer" is a weapon that can quickly and effectively lay deadly fire on multiple personnel congregated in close proximity in a short period of time- like a theater or a classroom, for example.

Appeal to authority, logical fallacy.

No, I have no authority and what I wrote doesn't claim any. It states my identity as a gun owner and user.

A private citizen will probably never have to defend his home or self from attack by an enemy patrol armed with military small arms.

It's a truth, and being so challenges the assertion that a private citizen needs the capabilities necessary to provide such a defense.

So someone should decide for an individual and autonomous citizen their own capability based on a centralized and politicized program meant for warfare?

Yes, the same assessment made of military recruits before they are issued weapons if the intent is to possess and use the weapons of modern warfare the military uses.

Not only do crazy people slip through the cracks as already established, but more importantly a lot of the screening process is to stem lawsuits.

Off the point.

You can't legally fly an FA-18 with a loaded and armed M61 Vulcan aboard by just buying one no matter how much money you have.

Totally relevant: Both are very effective modern arms of war, one of which is not available to civilians at any price (a violation of the 2A?), the other is available in many places to anyone who can steal one or who has the money regardless of any other aspect of who they are or what their mental state is.

More people die from overeating, smoking, drinking, automobiles, and .22lr caliber firearms.

Overeating, smoking (removed from others), and drinking are self- destructive, they aren't evils done to someone by someone else. Automobiles aren't used against others in an effort to kill them in any number that's significant. Calibers are not the issue.

Anyone who has not met the military's requirements to demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence to have access to weaponry with capabilities (save full-auto fire which is an insignificant difference when assaulting unarmed unprepared unaware targets like 6-year-olds) identical to the military's combat weaponry.

A "military state" is one run by the military, that's clearly not the proposal.

[Alabama Shooter]

I wrote: There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

Reasoning: In civilian life there are no hunting or defense situations that require a light, easily handled low recoil semiautomatic weapon with large on-board ammunition capacity, both of those uses for guns are equally or better met by guns less focused on quick, accurate mass killing. What's left are recreation, entertainments, in short, hobbies - targets, combat arms competitions, collections, re-creation of modern combat dress and equipment. etc. Justifying unlimited access to M-16- like capabilities at mass killing to maintain a hobby is nearly pathological indifference to the harm such weapons can do when the hobby gets out of hand. Too bad you can't ask Mrs. Lanza whether she agrees.

She owned one so I guess she would have disagreed with you.

The overthrow of an illegal or oppressive government is a legitimate civilian activity. If you don't believe me than ask the US Government why they are supporting the rebels in Syria to overthrow the government there.

A "crowd killer" is a weapon that can quickly and effectively lay deadly fire on multiple personnel congregated in close proximity in a short period of time- like a theater or a classroom, for example.

That would be just about any gun.

[zxcvbob]

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

Effective firearms in civilian situations don't need to be as efficient as modern combat weapons are at killing a lot of targets in a short period of time, it is unlikely in the extreme that any civilian will be presented with a threat that requires the capability to kill or injure multiple attackers of enough number that a large capacity magazine is necessary. Six shot revolvers with practiced use of Speedloaders or 7 or 8 round magazines in semi auto rifles or handguns is enough to defend against any threatening situation reasonably apt to occur.

The Supreme Court disagreed with you in the 1939 case U.S. v. Miller. AFAIK that ruling has not been overturned.

I don't like plastic guns either, I like nice walnut and blued metal, but military-equivalent weapons are the MOST constitutionally protected arms. Your duck-hunting double shotgun just goes along for the ride. And don't you ever think the gun-grabbers aren't after your guns too. They will not be happy until all guns are in the hands of the ruling class -- except for a few in the hands of violent criminals (which they'll never get rid of) but they are OK with that because criminals serve a useful purpose.

Diane Feinstein has a concealed weapons permit, and AFAIK she still carries a snubnosed revolver. Do you know any ordinary people in San Francisco who could get a permit?

[Brian Pfleuger]

It is disheartening that folks continue to concentrate on the tool.

The facts, divorced from emotion, prove irrefutably that the tool of choice is irrelevant.

These attacks happen all over the world and have been happening for all of recorded history.

Even in the modern world, a great many of these attacks are carried out with edged weapons and routinely kill as many or more than those attacks which use firearms.

In many parts of the world, there is near unrestricted, unlimited, cheap, easy access to fully-automatic weapons... and the attackers use explosives.

Timothy McVeigh used explosives and killed 18 daycare children, among others. The worst school attack in American history was done with explosives, and killed 38 children and 20 adults.

Believing that you can stop a lunatic who is bent on killing by forcing him to pick a different tool, is naive beyond comprehension. Totally divorced from the reality around us.

The ONLY relevance that firearms have to the discussion is their use to DEFEND ourselves from these potential lunatics. There is no other tool that can be effectively carried or utilized that could be accessible to a normal person during their daily lives. NONE.

The question of stopping the lunatics is a pure, unadulterated STRAW MAN argument. It's impossible. They can't be stopped. The end.

Pick a different goal.

[Alabama Shooter]

Effective firearms in civilian situations don't need to be as efficient as modern combat weapons are at killing a lot of targets in a short period of time, it is unlikely in the extreme that any civilian will be presented with a threat that requires the capability to kill or injure multiple attackers of enough number that a large capacity magazine is necessary. Six shot revolvers with practiced use of Speedloaders or 7 or 8 round magazines in semi auto rifles or handguns is enough to defend against any threatening situation reasonably apt to occur.

I would say it is highly unlikely that most people will ever use their firearm for self defense. However, I can think of plenty of times when having a higher capacity magazine was not enough; even for the police. Self defense is not a stated purpose in the Constitution for arms however so I am not sure how that has any meaning in a legal context.

[12GaugeShuggoth]

Believing that you can stop a lunatic who is bent on killing by forcing him to pick a different tool, is naive beyond comprehension. Totally divorced from the reality around us.

The ONLY relevance that firearms have to the discussion is their use to DEFEND ourselves from these potential lunatics. There is no other tool that can be effectively carried or utilized that could be accessible to a normal person during their daily lives. NONE.

The question of stopping the lunatics is a pure, unadulterated STRAW MAN argument. It's impossible. They can't be stopped. The end.

Pick a different goal.

+1, that's about as well said as it can get

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

Almost every single firearms platform ever designed, was for military use. Full Stop.

The fact that many firearms are now almost exclusively used for hunting or recreation detracts nothing from its original intent and purpose.

What was yesterday's military style firearm is simply today's hunting/sports/defensive firearm.

As for your contention that civilians must needs be vetted by some military form, might I remind you that today, some 40,000,000+ lawful firearm owners did not commit a violent criminal act?

[BullseyePrecision]

Every person is required to carry a handgun.

[Alabama Shooter]

Only if you're trying to hide modern combat weapons or their clones or imitators among all other guns. It ought to sound exactly like "Only police and military should have modern combat weapons or their clones or imitators".

How "modern" is a 70 year old design like the M1 Carbine?

[K_Mac]

Not all weapons, just those that in the wrong hands present a unique and greatly increased hazard to innocent civilians. Machine guns have been so designated, why is there no big push to get them legalized? Trying to scare gun owners into believing that ownership of all guns is at risk is no less ridiculous than claiming that no one ought to own any weapon.

Now we get to the crux of your position: Not all weapons, just the really dangerous ones. Would the results of the most recent atrocity have been different if the shooter had only been armed with a 9 mm Glock and a bag of loaded 10 round magazines? How about a Ruger GP 100 in .357 magnum and a bag of loaded speed loaders? How about a Mossberg 500 and a bag of several boxes of buckshot? How about a machete? Would the results have been any different had he been armed with any one of the weapons you own and a big bag of ammo? I doubt it very much. How then can you make the argument that all guns are not at risk? It does not follow.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

The right is to defend one's self with firearms. There are plenty of firearms that meet that objective that aren't capable in the wrong hands of killing a lot of targets in a short period of time, unnecessary for personal defense in any probable scenario in civilian life.

I bolded your error. The right is not limited to personal defense. It's The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

I wrote: There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

Reasoning: In civilian life there are no hunting or defense situations that require a light, easily handled low recoil semiautomatic weapon with large on-board ammunition capacity, both of those uses for guns are equally or better met by guns less focused on quick, accurate mass killing. . . . .

Patently untrue. For example, in the case of a home invasion or a natural disaster, the need for a light, easily handled, semiautomatic ought to be obvious.

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

. . . . Six shot revolvers with practiced use of Speedloaders or 7 or 8 round magazines in semi auto rifles or handguns is enough to defend against any threatening situation reasonably apt to occur.

"Reasonably apt to occur" really isn't the standard the SCOTUS has set forth. Perhaps more importantly, what if something that is "unreasonable" occurs? I work very hard to try to make sure that my family and I live in an area where a home invasion is something less than "reasonably apt" to occur. I think that's an awfully weak reason for the antis to deny me the right to own a weapon that could resolve such a situation in my favor, all because they fear what someone else might do with it.

A private citizen will probably never have to defend his home or self from attack by an enemy patrol armed with military small arms.

It's a truth, and being so challenges the assertion that a private citizen needs the capabilities necessary to provide such a defense.

Even though a citizen could need a light, low-recoil semiauto rifle with a moderate ammunition capacity, their right to own it is not based on needs.

Ever hear of the Bill of Needs?
Me, neither.

[dspieler]

I'm tempted to say "Preach it Uncle Billy".

I know that people say that guns are just tools, but not all tools are equal to every task. There are tools that are better suited to different tasks, and, prima facie, the AR is a tool nicely suited to a particular situation that, as Uncle Billy has suggested, I think correctly, is not a highly likely one in civilian life.

Ride me out on a rail on this, but I think there's a significant portion of the community that is harboring fantasies of holding off swarms of gov't agents, zombies, marauding bands of hoodlums, etc. Granted, in such situations, and AR would be handy. Outside of these situations, it is hard to see where alternative tools are insufficient to the task.

So, here's what kinda freaks people, the 'anti's', out a bit: It seems like there is a refusal to even admit that certain tools are optimized for different situations, and there are some tools that are so unlikely to arise in civilian life, that the tool probably doesn't have a strong reason to be in civilian hands.

There, I said it. I have an AR, and I probably shouldn't. Because I'm not going to be fighting off large organized bands of bad guys, and I'm not going to be leading a revolution.

Should they be banned? Hell, I actually not sure because I'm not sure that it will make a massive difference, but failing to even acknowledge that these weapons have been designed with a very specific purpose, seems like a deliberate attempt as self deception.

I'm donning my flame retardant suit, so flame on!

[mayosligo]

How is the purpose of an AR different from a Remington 700 or a Browning BPS? What makes you think that any firearm can make the list?

[Spats McGee]

I don't deny that an AR is better suited for some situations than, say, an 870 Wingmaster. That'd be plain ol' silly. What I am saying is that your right to own isn't (or shouldn't be) predicated on the popular idea of what's "needed." If you open that door for the antis, then it's only a matter of time before the public is stripped of every firearm, down to and including Daisy Red Riders.

I don't think of guns as tools. They're weapons. The 2A doesn't protect the right to keep and bear tools.

[dspieler]

I don't deny that an AR is better suited for some situations than, say, an 870 Wingmaster. That'd be plain ol' silly. What I am saying is that your right to own isn't (or shouldn't be) predicated on the popular idea of what's "needed." If you open that door for the antis, then it's only a matter of time before the public is stripped of every firearm, down to and including Daisy Red Riders.

Modern life is predicated on making decisions in terms of costs and benefits. I hate to break it to you but there aren't alot of absolutes.

SCOTUS explicitly noted that their decision affirming the personal right to bear arms did not preclude regulations barring or severely restricting the ability of individuals from owning particular classes of firearms.

Indeed, we already do this. NFA institutes a different regime for owning particular classes.

So, the question that is going to be dealt with, is whether the easy availability of ARs and such (however any final legislation attempts to define it) has a cost, and is the cost worth the benefit. For all of those individuals that harbor SHTF fantasies of zombie wastelands, that's not a benefit that is going to weigh into the calculation. Neither is the idea that we might need to defend ourselves from marauding bands of BATF agents. We need to get our heads right and our feet on the ground and deal with reality.

In my own personal belief, and as someone who lived in Germany and Sweden for periods of time, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that semi-automatic weapons, pistols or long guns, have a weak foundation for justifying broad ownership in the civilian population. This isn't an argument that I want to prevail, but I know good, decent, intelligent people that make very good arguments to this effect. They will argue, with very strong empirical evidence, that making killing tools less prevalent in the population, there will be less killing.

Our argument needs to engage them on similar empirical grounds and not 1) Simply denying that some guns are just better at killing than others and 2) that our right to bear arms is absolute. Both are demonstrably false. The first by design, and the second by current law.