There's more than just a ray of hope for a better country through government. There's reason to be optimistic America will someday rewrite gun and ammunition laws to bring us one step closer to what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.
Most surprisingly, as Lawrence O'Donnell explained in the latest Rewrite, that hope comes from an unlikely sourse: the biggest conservative on the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia.
Leave a Comment:
Lawrence, I am an NRA member who is frankly appalled that all gun sales don't require a background check, that guns sales are allowed at gun shows AT ALL, and that magazines of over 20 rounds are available for any civilian. Better yet, when Ron Regan guest hosted 'Hardball' the day after the shootings in Aurora, he espoused the idea that we at least treat firearms like cars: implement a licensing and registration process that includes a test of competency to handle those firearms, and in my mind a psychological interview. However, when it comes to what the founding fathers may have expected or anticipated weapons to become, please read the following from the Wikipedia article entitled 'Machine Gun': In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds, automatically, and was capable of being loaded by a cartridge. Congress requested that Belton modify 100 flintlock muskets to fire eight shots in this manner, but rescinded the order when Belton's price proved too high. This passage, in concert with the fact that one of the most popular firearms of the day, the 'Brown Bess' flintlock musket, fired an enormous .75 caliber lead ball (as opposed to the .223 caliber 'varmit' round that the Aurora shooter's AR-15 fired), could lead one to believe that the more forward thinkers among our founding fathers might think that we haven't progressed all that far in 235 years. I think they might agree with me that 'responsible gun ownership', and not 'gun control', is the answer to our firearms dilemma.
Uh John, Occam's Razor suggests Joseph Belton was a bit of a con artist, prone to exaggeration. The reason my bullchip apparatus was jangled is I come from a line of historian sorts with a few gunsmiths in the family tree, and I hadn't heard about anything about it. Praise be to the Google God...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
There are no known surviving examples of Belton's gun; in fact, the only evidence of its existence is the correspondence between Belton and Congress. Belton described the gun as capable of firing up to "sixteen or twenty [balls], in sixteen, ten, or five seconds of time". It is theorized that it worked in a manner similar to a Roman candle with a single lock igniting a igniting chain of charges stacked in a single barrel, packaged as a single large paper cartridges. Despite commissioning Belton to build or modify 100 muskets for the military on May 3, 1777, the order was dismissed in May, 15, 1777, when Congress received Belton's bid and considered it an "extraordinary allowance".
One needs to keep a close eye on the "historical revisionists" claims... It's a lovely way of getting attention without resorting to the mundane drudgery of actual scholarship.
And if you don't think we've progressed all that far in 235 years, consider "black versus smokeless" gunpowder.
...oh and to clarify, a .75 caliber projectile would be nearly 19mm in diameter, while a .223 caliber is roughly 5.56mm. Also, if the shooter in Aurora (I refuse to use his name) had perhaps chained and padlocked the doors, and set the theater on fire, what would we be discussing then; outlawing the sale of padlocks? Unfortunately I think that in this case the shooter had previously attended the theater, and observed the ridiculous practice of people being allowed to go outside via emergency exit doors that they propped open in order to use their cell phones and return to the show without having to go to the lobby. Simply enforcing existing rules concerning emergency exits may have prevent this entire tragedy.
theater on fire, what would we be discussing then; outlawing the sale of padlocks?
--------------------------------------------------------
No b/c of good regulation the theater would have a sprinkler system and the materials inside would be fire resistant. I am not sure if you think fire and guns are the same but they are not.
And John, as far as those .75 caliber military muskets are concerned, you neglected to mention they were smoothbores without "rifled" barrels. The claimed rate of fire--2-3 rounds per minute--would be impossible with grooved barrels, which is why muskets survived as military weapons for so long. The deadly "Kentucky Rifles" were strictly single shot affairs, but accurate at twice the range or longer as a musket.
And from a standpoint of "business sense," your "emergency door" idea is silly, too. One either has to have an alarm on the door, risking a disruptive incident from very predictable child or teenage behavior, or station additional personnel as monitors, and increasing payroll costs to the point of unprofitability.
The .223 is a military and varmint hunting caliber that has been stretched to be used on antelope and small deer. It fires a 50 gran bullet, same size that can be found for the old useful for small game .22 rimfire cartridge; in its military and fur bearing varmints like coyottes the lead core bullet is a fully metal encased which cause more pass through channel wounds and kills to vital organs, than a non metal shielded round soft point or hollow point, which causes more shock and tearing wounds for maximum bleed outs.
Amongst the long line of military cartridges, it is very effective as the ability for the soldier in the field to carry more cartridges due to lighter weight, its ability to be fired from high capacity clips (standard 20 rds) in semi-auto or auto capable rifles (or bolt action or single shot for hunting purposes), and for its accuracy at long range. And compared to the .308 and .30.06 and .30 Carbine and .30-40 Krag or the old Black Powder rounds or Musket Balls of days of old, it is a relatively humane military round.
Nothing in that picture that says there will be any rationale movement by anyone to deny its avialability to the American public.
Sheesh, Grandpa, I hate to sound like a know-it-all, but the .22 rimfires were pretty much restricted to 40 grain bullets, and 36 if they were hollow points. Now, you want to hear about the slide action Remington I used to empty at jackrabbits out in the sagebrush flats west of here. It fired a .22 WRF... Midway between the LR and a .22 Magnum...
John's theme was a lame attempt to address a historical possibility about how the "intent' of the "framers" of the Consitution might be a factor in future SCOTUS decisions on the legality of assault weapons, etc. There was an obvious attempt to tie-in fully automatic weapons or "extra large" calibers with historical "precedence," which I demonstrated was probably silly. I even had to "update" myself on the .50 caliber stuff; the last article I read on that one was probably a G&A piece in the 70's when they were still trying to make the military round work in a conventional rife. I see they finally succeeded by "starting to build a new firearm from the receiver up." Not surprising.
The issue of "original intent" is also a factor in Supreme Court decisions; that's how the ban on polygamy here on Planet Utah (Reynolds v. USA) was held to be constitutional despite claims of "religious freedom."
The problem isn't with the .223 cartridge; Remington used to make a sweet bolt-action carbine (Model 600? 660?) that chambered the round. The problem is that it's essentially child's play for a gunsmith to modify an AR-15 or AK-47 to full automatic, and even if that isn't done, the additional firepower beyond a five or ten round magazine has no sporting purpose whatsoever. Law enforcement and SWAT team members who encounter criminals with these guns--or more likely, unbalanced crazies--face an unacceptable risk from that added firepower.
Unfortunately, the testosterone-addled looney tunes highjacked the NRA and adopted the same "talking points mantras" that have turned conservatives into brain dead zombies. I think they scared their brains to death.
I use both 37 grain copper clad hollow point 22. LR rimfire rounds and 50 grain solids in my .22 revolvers and single shot rifle/20 gauge shotgun combo small game getter, depending on the game, Cab Driver.
There was a long history of the use of military battle rifles and military cartridges, either modified or taken as is, by civilians for target shooting and hunting in the US of A. Driver. The ones I listed above for example.
The problem is that we don't enforce the Second Amendment enough. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."--where's the regulation of that militia? If you own a gun you are part of the militia. It's high time we got these gun owners together on a regular basis and drilled them. They need to have their assignments in case of an emergency.
You didn't see any of the militia turning out here in response to the disaster. No wonder. They don't have any idea what to do. None of the states or counties organize these people and make them a part of the community.
That's why we have a bunch of criminals running around with guns shooting people. It's all indulgence: give me the fun part without the responsibility part. Not a single legislator I know has ever proposed regulating these people.
Screw regulating the guns. I want the people regulated.
In our day and age the militia are usually considered to be Reservists and National Guard troops and units in our country as well as the hidden reserve of veterans that have been formerly trained. Many io these veterans serve as Police, Firefighters, Security Personnel, and EMTs in their communities. Throw in some former Military School or Academy students snd ROTC students to and all these classes of citizens that make up the modern day militia, who are private citizens even as they go about their occasional drills and duties as Reservists and Guardsmen and women are not issued weapons to have at their homes, like the Isrealis or the Swiss, for example. They are expected if they take the initiative to shoot on ranges to keep their marksmanship skills they have been trained in to supply their own firearms for tha purpose, you know.
Yes, it is therefore important to have an ongoing war or two--despite the national sacrifice and hardships imposed--to make sure there are adequate numbers of trained gunfighters walking the streets to keep us safe.
SLC
Who hasn't yet met a C&C permit holder he felt could pass an ordinary sanity test...
Well, there is some truth to the concept that a war every now and then leads to new discoveries in the ways to make war and useull training mostly for our officer corps, mostly commissioned and noncommissioned, Cab Driver. I'll give you that.
As to your CCP holders, well, not so much agreement there. My sister is one I live with, and she is pretty level headed and sound of mind, I would hazzard, and not fired up on testerone.
Keith Longey,
Well, there is some truth to the concept that a war every now and then
------------------------------------------------ The problem is you folks feel that IF you start the war it is spreading democracy, if a dem starts the war it is the tail wagging the dog.
First, an aside: Will be in NYC ThursPM. Now, more SCALIA: Under the gun, trying his own rewrite...of The PPACA/Obamacare...causing more tension, and putting Boehner and his guys in a more precarious position. What up?
Trying to save money, an in a diplomatic gesture...Boehner put his stamp of approval (44 stamp for 44th) on...approx 13 million 44-cent, prestamped envelopes...for anticipated health insurance consumer rebate checks...resulting from insurance co. missing the MLR...the new 80/85 rule.. About 01.01.2012, put in storage, ready to go...assured by Boehner all OK.
Ooops...Later in January, Boehner/Congress OK'd postal rate increase. Borrowing from gov't logic...insurance companies reasoned...cheaper to buy 12.8 million 45-cent prestamped envelopes, and pay processing fee..than to pay cost to affix 12.8 million stamps to original envelopes. But, with congress ordering USPS cutbacks, guess what?
Boehner thought ..all would work out...as PPACA/Obamacare would be found unconstitutional, obviously. And told insurance companies "not to worry...we have it under control". Ooops! June 2012...Court said consumer rebate "checks in the mail". Est. rebate $1.1 billion, as in "B" for Boehner. Insurance companies, since told not to worry, hits Boehner/congress for extra $128,000 in stamps, and a huge processing fee from a demoralized, depleted, irritated post office, recently hammered by same.
Exposed, redfaced Boehner shrunk to a tangerine orange. Caught red-handed...trying to save money...something strctly forbidden in Congress. Lesson learned: An unadvertised special from PPACA/Obamacare...Really? Yers. really. And when is a tax not a tax? When it is a PPACA/Obamacare consumer MLR rebate check...Really, yes, really. END. All above fictional. Any similarity to real person(s), Place(s), event(s) coincidental. Not responsible for errors. Great program segments...
Don't count on those "rebate checks" Obamacare supposedly engendered...the huge majority of them will not go to individuals insured, but to the employers either as reimbursements to be kept and/or credits against the coming big increase in premiums the Obamacare implementation will cause.
"By the end if my first term, the average American family will see their health insurance premiums reduced by an average of $2,500"...well they have been steadily increasing since the (Un)affordabile Care Act was passed and signec, no one in their right mind is looking for a turnaround by December, 2012 when Obama will be packing up his personal belongings and papers and getting ready to relinguish the keys to the White House, partly as a result for this wretchedly flawed and costly bill of goods pushed through through Congress at his insistance.
You are correct Keith we should follow your leader, Romney, and praise Isreal for their 8% national health care cost
Isreal is a fairly small company, with a very young population. So many of the aged people of the Jewish peoples died in the concentration camps under German extinction campaigns, or are living the good retired life in Florida, you know, Jason
I do know, that Israel is not a company. Israel is leading the world in health care and you folks hate that. Your guy praised nationalized health care with complete government control, WHY? b/c of the money saved, yet you folks say we should NOT save that money and NOT get better results. As usual you move the goal post EVERY single time, just once it would be nice to see a right winger stay consistent on an issue