18 Comments
Daniel Clark The AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle and that term was used by the politicians and media to create an agenda and fear in some people. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle, a rifle with different looks and function than a 30-06. What about automobiles, hammer, bats, etc which have killed many people over many decades and why are the media and politicians trying to ban those? Why aren’t they trying to put fear about those items into the people? Because they create an agenda to control the population. Education in firearms will good for you since you don’t know about them.
Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=318615&lang=EN#vin3Comment-1493104
----------------------
Scott Price two people break into your home when you and family are there and can shoot more than 8 rounds and you can only own a firearm that shoots only 8 or less. The politicians want to hold the population back who vote because of the population rises up against them, they are screwed.
Read the 2nd Amendment and why it was put into the Constitution in the first place. It is my 2nd Amendment right to have more than eight rounds. It is the politician who fears the people who voted or didn’t vote for them who doesn’t want the population to have firearms.
Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=318615&lang=EN#vin3Comment-1493103
----------------------
Illinois' ban will remain in effect while SCOTUS deliberates
The Left will tout this as a "victory for common sense gun laws" but fail to grasp what's actually going to happen. The Heller decision explicitly protects arms in common usage - there are 10's of millions of what lawmakers call "assault weapons" and hundreds of millions of what lawmakers call "high capacity magazines" already in public hands - I'd say both fall under common usage as a result.
The Bruen decision clearly states that the text, history and tradition of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is the measuring stick by which all proposed gun control should be judged. There is no language or historical precedent from our founding which supports restrictions on which types of small arms can be owned or what capacity to expend ammunition they are equipped with. In other words Lefties, riot and loot all you want but prepare to kiss your assault weapon and magazine bans GOODBYE!
Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=318615&lang=EN#vin3Comment-1493101
----------------------
Clark Richards did you look at the list of all 647 mass shootings last year? The website is a non biased reporting firm and list ALL the mass shootings recorded. You might have to do a little work yourself and look up each one of them individually like I did. There are plenty of sources that tell you 80% of mass shootings are done by gangbangers but this one actually just has a list of them so you can look yourself and not take the word of some biased media source. Did you know the FBI doesn’t even record these as mass shootings? That is why the FBI only has a little over 250 mass shootings recorded since 1966. They only recorded 50 last year and a little over 20 this year. We have a serious gang problem in our country. I’m not even trying to argue with you on banning assault rifles. However, if we really want to take care of shootings, we need to start with the mass and not the few. We should make it to work. Gang members automatically get a life sentence in prison.
Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=318615&lang=EN#vin3Comment-1493109
----------------------
Scott Price I can reload and when there is a situation where you can’t reload because it may mean you or your family with be shot dead quicker you need a magazine which holds more than eight round at a time. The crooks are going to care if you have to reload because they fire as many rounds as they can in a short amount of time.
Crooks will have firearms which can hold more than eight round because they don’t care about the firearm laws. Just like the gun free zones have more shootings than anywhere else because the politicians want to control the population. I want to have more ammunition than the crooks trying to break into my home because I want them to leave in a body bag and not my family.
Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=318615&lang=EN#vin3Comment-1493105
----------------------
Sam, I find it hilarious that so many Americans got their "American history lessons" from the BS in Hollywood movies. "If citizens didn't have weapons we would still be British'?
General George Washington wrote an early letter to the President of Congress concerning, among other things, the inefficacy and general dysfunction of the colonial state militias. After his dealings with the various militias George Washington lamented, “To place any dependence on the militia is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff.” The Colonial militias were notoriously ineffective precisely because they did not have military grade weaponry, training, or tactics. That's WHY Washington was forced to raise a professional army trained by professional military men from Europe and armed with professional grade battlefield French combat arms that the Colonial militias did not have and could never afford.
An average top-of-the-line musket available at the time cost at least eight pounds sterling, which is about $1620 US dollars today. There are colonial era records of some sellers demanding and getting as much as 25 pounds sterling, or over $5,000 modern USD for their muskets when a small shipment of the newest, highest quality weapons did arrive from overseas, due to intense demand and limited availability. The average annual income of an American of that period was between 10 and 13 pounds sterling, meaning that such weapons were simply beyond their reach financially, for a new musket could cost as much or more than was earned in an entire year by the average colonist.
Unlike today, weapons technology of the colonial period was very expensive, with virtually all such weapons still being manufactured in Europe and shipped to America for sale in the New World. In truth, many of these firearm shipments actually consisted primarily of older, inferior used weapons and not brand-new guns, which were sold first to the European markets before being offered to the Colonies, with the older muskets and other guns often traded in during these Old-World sales then being sent to the Americas for resale after being refurbished by gunsmiths in Europe. Most American colonists simply could never have afforded a brand-new musket with the latest technological improvements, so they usually instead purchased these older, cheaper, less desirable used weapons that often had been modified and repeatedly repaired, because that is what was available to them on their very limited incomes.
You'll never see those ACTUAL facts in a Hollywood adventure move about the Colonial period.
Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=318615&lang=EN#vin3Comment-1493118
----------------------
Chris, conservatives seem to think that the Second 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".
But it doesn't. it reads, ""A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, (COMMA) shall not be infringed".
That comma means that "shall not be infringed applies to the entire text of the Second Amendment, not simply the 10 words that precede it as conservatives seem to think. Please stop trying to infringe on the Second Amendment right of Americans to see that arms are well regulated.
Unlike most overexuberant "defenders" of the Second Amendment today, the Founders were among the most well-educated men of their era and were well aware of and used some quite complex proper English and American English sentence structure at the time that they wrote Our nation’s Founding documents, definitely taking into account and using word dominance (words that come first or early in a sentence) and word prominence (the reason to specifically capitalize words inside a sentence not normally capitalized).
Please observe how the oft-disputed Second 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". Also, notice the second and third words are, "well regulated".
As a matter of proper grammatical form and priority they are there in early prominence at the start of the sentence prior to the first comma for a solidly logical reason; to establish dominance and authority over all following words in the sentence with Militia being capitalized to show the intent of said grammatical dominance.
Words that subsequently come much later in the sentence, such as the fifteenth word "right", and the twenty-fourth through twenty-seventh words "shall not be infringed", the last three words in the sentence, are all are obviously meant to be grammatically inferior in authority to the onset words "well regulated", as is "people" (in this context the word people refers to the citizenry as an entity, not the individual) none of which are capitalized as is "Militia".
Therefore, it is quite obvious to see that "well-regulated Militia" is intentionally meant to dominate over any subsequent mandates also contained within the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment was written in the 18th century, specifically authorizing state militias to assist a new federal institution, the US military, to defend our infant nation against the British. It was not intended to provide every citizen with access to modern day weapons designed for wholesale slaughter on the battlefield. The word "people" in the SA when combined with the intentionally prominently capitalized word "Militia" as originally intended refers to the citizenry as an entity, not the individual. When it was written women had no rights, non-English men could not vote, and slavery was legal.
Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=318615&lang=EN#vin3Comment-1493112
----------------------
Clark Richards There's only been one ban of "assault weapons" enacted by Congress. I read it many years ago. There isn't one thing in it that would apply to the handgun the Virginia Tech shooter used. Since you seem to be incapable of posting the Congressional definition of an assault weapon I'll take care of it. By the way, there is no Congressional law in affect concerning "assault weapons". None whatsoever.
(b) Definition of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon.--Section 921(a) of
such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
``(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the
firearms, known as--
``(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies
Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
``(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI
and Galil;
``(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
``(iv) Colt AR-15;
``(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
``(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
``(vii) Steyr AUG;
``(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
``(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or
similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
``(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously
beneath the action of the weapon;
``(iii) a bayonet mount;
``(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel
designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
``(v) a grenade launcher;
``(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept
a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
``(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the
pistol outside of the pistol grip;
``(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a
barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or
silencer;
``(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially
or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits
the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger
hand without being burned;
``(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more
when the pistol is unloaded; and
``(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic
firearm; and
``(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
``(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously
beneath the action of the weapon;
``(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5
rounds; and
``(iv) an ability to accept a detachable
magazine.''.
Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=318615&lang=EN#vin3Comment-1493111
----------------------