Build it and they won't come

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Big SNIP

The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round
per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus
handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for
hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I can fire a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle at 10 rounds per 10 seconds. The standard magazine capacity for that rifle is 10 rounds. If I wanted to I could get another magazine or two forit, cut those magazines apart and then weld the three of them together to form a 30 rounds capacity magazine. That would allow me to fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds. If I wanted more accurate aimed fire I could support the fore-end of the rifle on a sand bag.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you claim. I'm saying it
shouldn't be legal. Why would you want to do that anyway? Is it just in
case a gaggle of U.S.ian gun nuts charges over the border to the north?


Actually, at close range a shotgun with a wide spread of shiot can be better than a rifle since the shotgun can hit more than one person with each shot fired.

Watch a video of the Big Sandy Shoot and marvel at the number of people with .30 caliber General Purpose Machine Guns, .50 caliber heavy machine guns, 7.62mm Electric Gatling-type machine guns, 37mm anti-tank cannons, etcetera. One guy even had a 76mm Hellcat tank destroyer with a working 76mm main gun. All those weapons had the primary purpose of killing people. A lot of people,dare I say most people with rapid-fire high-rounds capacity shoot for fun.

Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if doing
so causes or aids thousands of murders.

Btw, when hunting if you wound an animal, 5 seconds is a long time and you'd better be really good at tracking because other wise that animal will be long gone by the time you're ready to take that second shot. If it's an large angry wounded animal that charges you them your 5 seconds delay getting off a second shot could have you either dead or severely injured.

As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for subsequent
rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been saved only by
his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion really quickly.
But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than it prevents.

BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second with the gun in
my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice has been for
accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never have
inconvenienced me.

And let's remember that "the [American] right to bear arms" was written
when nobody conceived of a gun that could accurately fire three rounds
in a minute.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:59:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/12/2017 9:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:59:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/12/2017 4:46 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/11/2017 9:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:29:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/11/2017 9:42 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 4:54:17 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

It seems unlikely, at best, to believe that you didn't understand the
content of the original posts between Frank and I where he commented
that punching holes in a paper target with a gun and thinking you were
a big, bad, man was childish.

I then replied "like a 60 year old guy on a CF racing bike".

I can only assume that you are interjecting your off topic remarks
deliberately. So yes, goodbye.

Walking off in a snit again John? Really, get over yourself. You're beginning to sound like Frank who denies that where the strongest guns laws are we have the highest rates of gun crimes and where the least gun laws are in effect the murder rates are insignificant.

You mean like Canada vs. the U.S.? Or like Windsor vs. Detroit? Got
numbers?

Even a casual look shows little correlation between gun ownership in
the U.S. and homicides.

Gun ownership http://tinyurl.com/ybnxnu8x
States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners (more than 50%)

1. Wyoming - 59.7% Homicide rate 2.7/100,000
2. Alaska - 57.8% 8.0
3. Montana - 57.7% 3.5
4. South Dakota - 56.6% 3.7
5. West Virginia - 55.4% 3.8
6. Mississippi - 55.3% 8.7
6. Idaho - 55.3% 1.9
6. Arkansas - 55.3% 6.1
9. Alabama - 51.7% 7.2
10. North Dakota - 50.7% 2.8

States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners

40. Delaware - 25.5% Homicide rate 6.7/100,000
41. Florida - 24.5% 5.1
42. California - 21.3% 4.8
42. Maryland - 21.3% 8.6
44. Illinois - 20.2% 5.8
45. New York - 18% 3.1
46. Connecticut - 16.7% 3.3
47. Rhode Island - 12.8% 2.7
48. Massachusetts - 12.6% 1.9
49. New Jersey - 12.3% 4.1
50. Hawaii - 6.7% 1.3

Homicide rate from
http://tinyurl.com/gp9usuy

The State with the lowest homicide rate is New Hampshire (1.1/100,000)
and gun ownership of 30%.

I've been generally aware of that data for quite a while. Digging
deeper, here is what I think it shows:

States with lower population density, and especially with a greater
percentage of their population living in rural areas, tend to have more
people who own rifles and shotguns used for hunting and "varmint"
control. They also have much less of the social stress derived from
mixed cultures in dense cities.


Whether it is lower density or whatever I'm fairly sure that the
people are the major problem area.

Well, I'm sure that's true. As I understand it, places with no people
have very little crime!
But please note: I'm strongly in favor of hunting with guns. I'm
strongly in favor of most varmint control. I'm not talking about
reducing the number of guns in general.

Instead, I'm talking about reducing (or ideally, eliminating) the number
of guns specifically designed for killing other people. Those would
include guns designed or modified to shoot rapidly and to shoot many
rounds without reloading. And to further infuriate the gun nuts, I'd be
in favor of eventually reducing the number of handguns, since almost all
of those are intended as people killers.

The problem is, as I tried to point out, is that any configuration of
a "gun" can be used to kill people. Wild Bill Hickok kill at least 8
people with a .36 caliber cap and ball revolver, which is classified
as an antique and can be legally owned by anyone today.

From what I've just read, Hickok did kill several people, during a time
when lawlessness and drunken shootings were quite common. In most cases,
he killed them as a law officer acting in self defense, although several
of those seem to be questionable. But they were almost always one-on-one
situations. I don't see that having a gun that fired only once in five
seconds would have made a difference.

In any case, "Other things can kill so don't ban guns specially designed
for killing people" seems a specious argument. We do ban other things
specially designed for killing people, and no sane person thinks it's an
attack on their second amendment rights. (Thank God the National Hand
Grenade Association isn't as flush with money as the NRA.)

So: If we could correlate the number of non-hunting guns with gun
homicide rates, I suspect we'd see much different results. I think the
number of people-killing guns correlates pretty well with the rate of
gun deaths.

But I doubt that information is out there. The NRA has successfully
purchased laws that prohibit studying gun violence too closely.

I'm not so sure about that...

Really? See
http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...nap-story.html

... as without very much effort I seem to find
a considerable amount of official data regarding shootings.

Find me the data I asked about: the correlation between the number of
guns designed specifically for killing people vs. homicide rates. The
types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round
per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus
handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for
hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use.

Ah Frank, now you are down to one shot per second :-)

But more to the point, why should I - a law abiding citizen - be
deprived of my right to use a pistol to shoot deer with? Or woodchucks
for that matter? To my personal knowledge no one in my family has shot
a human for five generations.

Why should you be deprived of that "right"? For the same reason that an
avid admirer of explosives of all kinds is not allowed to possess hand
grenades. Heck, it's getting really difficult to find a place to buy C-4
plastic explosive material, just because of the oppressive and unjust
anti-explosive laws!

(Fun fact: I have a friend who bought some C-4 from a local guy as part
of a sting operation, which sent the seller to prison. After his
release, in a completely unrelated event, I got to meet the guy with the
prison time. He remarked at one time "These things are so strong you
couldn't even blow them up!" My friend said "Yep. He would know.")

Getting back to the point: Why should handguns, grenades and explosives
and rapid-fire people killers be highly controlled? It's a matter of
benefits vs. detriments. Regarding the handgun, the benefit is some dude
gets to brag "I took that buck with a handgun!" (IOW "Wow, I am highly
skilled and manly!") the detriment is thousands of handgun deaths per
year, far more per capita than any other advanced westernized country.
The detriment is far greater than the benefit.
It might also be noted that of the large "gun death" numbers quoted in
many articles about the dangers of gun ownership, that for the past 35
years (as of 2015) the majority of the "gun deaths" have been suicide.

Yes, depending on the article. Some data counts gun deaths, some data
counts homicides.

I suppose some might say "If someone wants to shoot themselves, that's
no problem." But society as a whole tends to disagree. Much work is done
to prevent suicide. Lots of money is spent on 911 operator training,
counseling centers, psychiatry and psychology etc. A lot of that is
employed after a failed suicide attempt, and the near-victims are often
glad they got a second chance to avoid the "permanent solution to a
temporary problem." But with guns, there usually is no second chance.


You appear to keep ignoring my point(s) that none of your suggestions,
i.,e. 5 seconds between rounds, big magazines,etc., are at all
practical. As for suicides, can you think of any liberty greater then
the liberty to kill yourself?

And yes, before you get started, I do know that a great many
non-firearm "suicides" are attempts at calling attention to themselves
- "See Mom, I'm so put upon I tried to kill myself!"

But more important from the Wiki "Suicide rates in youths have nearly
tripled between the 1960s and 1980s. For example, in Australia suicide
is second only to motor vehicle accidents as its leading cause of
death for people aged 15.

Does that say something about the society that exists? Or not?

And yes, that does serve to illustrate the old saw that "gun's don't
kill people, people kill people".

But of course, the idea that guns in some manner cause crime and thus
banning guns will essentially ban crime, if really based on emotion -
ban the demon guns, just as "ban the demon rum" was Carry Nation's
battle cry.

As for methods of suicide, yes, firearms do account for very slightly
over 50% (less then 51%) and poisons and suffocation maker up the
majority of the other options. Will the next cry be to ban rope and
insecticides? Or more logically does that mean that banning guns will
eliminate 50% of the suicides?

By the way, the leading 7 countries for age 15 - 24 suicide a

New Zealand 26.7 per 100,000
Finland 22.8 per 100,000 people
Switzerland 17.9 per 100,000 people
Austria 15 per 100,000 people
Canada 15 per 100,000 people
Australia 14.6 per 100,000 people
United States 13.7 per 100,000 people

Gun ownership per 100 people:

New Zealand 22.6/100
Finland 34.2/100
Switzerland 6.4/100
Austria 20.4/100
Canada 30.8/100
Australia 24.1/100
United States 112/100

Japan's all ages suicide rate had declined to 21,897 in 2016, the
lowest level in 22 years. But was the top cause of death among people
in five age groups from 15 to 39. Gun ownership? 0.6/100
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 21:15:26 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Big SNIP

The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round
per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus
handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for
hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I can fire a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle at 10 rounds per 10 seconds. The standard magazine capacity for that rifle is 10 rounds. If I wanted to I could get another magazine or two forit, cut those magazines apart and then weld the three of them together to form a 30 rounds capacity magazine. That would allow me to fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds. If I wanted more accurate aimed fire I could support the fore-end of the rifle on a sand bag.


Slow! See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_a7pXWi6xo

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:46:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Big SNIP

The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round
per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus
handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for
hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I can fire a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle at 10 rounds per 10 seconds. The standard magazine capacity for that rifle is 10 rounds. If I wanted to I could get another magazine or two forit, cut those magazines apart and then weld the three of them together to form a 30 rounds capacity magazine. That would allow me to fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds. If I wanted more accurate aimed fire I could support the fore-end of the rifle on a sand bag.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you claim. I'm saying it
shouldn't be legal. Why would you want to do that anyway? Is it just in
case a gaggle of U.S.ian gun nuts charges over the border to the north?


Actually, at close range a shotgun with a wide spread of shiot can be better than a rifle since the shotgun can hit more than one person with each shot fired.

Watch a video of the Big Sandy Shoot and marvel at the number of people with .30 caliber General Purpose Machine Guns, .50 caliber heavy machine guns, 7.62mm Electric Gatling-type machine guns, 37mm anti-tank cannons, etcetera. One guy even had a 76mm Hellcat tank destroyer with a working 76mm main gun. All those weapons had the primary purpose of killing people. A lot of people,dare I say most people with rapid-fire high-rounds capacity shoot for fun.

Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if doing
so causes or aids thousands of murders.

Btw, when hunting if you wound an animal, 5 seconds is a long time and you'd better be really good at tracking because other wise that animal will be long gone by the time you're ready to take that second shot. If it's an large angry wounded animal that charges you them your 5 seconds delay getting off a second shot could have you either dead or severely injured.

As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for subsequent
rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been saved only by
his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion really quickly.
But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than it prevents.

BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second with the gun in
my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice has been for
accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never have
inconvenienced me.

And let's remember that "the [American] right to bear arms" was written
when nobody conceived of a gun that could accurately fire three rounds
in a minute.

Actually you are wrong. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ
3 rounds in 46 seconds or about 3.91 rounds per minute.

(the Brown Bess musket was produced from 1722 )
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 13/10/17 17:04, John B. wrote:


As for methods of suicide, yes, firearms do account for very slightly
over 50% (less then 51%) and poisons and suffocation maker up the
majority of the other options. Will the next cry be to ban rope and
insecticides? Or more logically does that mean that banning guns will
eliminate 50% of the suicides?


In Australia it seems the method of suicide is nothing like 50% due to
firearms these days, though it may have got close a couple of times in
the past.

"In 2009, the most frequent method of suicide was by Hanging,
strangulation or suffocation (X70), a method used in just over half
(51.3%) of all suicide deaths. Poisoning by drugs was used in 14.9% of
suicide deaths, followed by poisoning by other methods including by
alcohol and motor vehicle exhaust (11.7%). Methods using firearms
accounted for 7.7% of suicide deaths. The remaining suicide deaths
included deaths from drowning, jumping from a high place, and other
methods."

As for the elimination theory...

http://www.ic-wish.org/WiSH%20Fact%20Sheet%20Trends%20in%20Australian%20S uicide.pdf

•
Although most firearm-related deaths are suicides,
firearm suicides represent a low
percentage of suicides overall.
•
Firearm suicide rates began falling in the 1980s.
•
A number of studies, from a range of different sour
ces, have shown that:
o
The 1996 firearms legislation did not have a signif
icant impact on the pre-existing
downward trend in firearm suicides.
o
Declines in firearm suicide have been accompanied by
an increase in the use of
other suicide methods (especially hanging).
o
Declines in non-firearm suicides began around the sa
me time as the gun laws
were changed. The declines coincided with the introd
uction of the National
Suicide Prevention Strategy.
•
A recent report backed by the Public Health Associat
ion of Australia concluded that the
1996 gun laws were “not a cost effective intervention
� for suicide prevention.

--
JS

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Big SNIP

The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round
per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus
handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for
hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I can fire a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle at 10 rounds per 10
seconds. The standard magazine capacity for that rifle is 10
rounds. If I wanted to I could get another magazine or two forit,
cut those magazines apart and then weld the three of them together
to form a 30 rounds capacity magazine. That would allow me to fire
30 rounds in 30 seconds. If I wanted more accurate aimed fire I
could support the fore-end of the rifle on a sand bag.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you claim. I'm saying it
shouldn't be legal. Why would you want to do that anyway? Is it just
in case a gaggle of U.S.ian gun nuts charges over the border to the
north?


Actually, at close range a shotgun with a wide spread of shiot can
be better than a rifle since the shotgun can hit more than one
person with each shot fired.

Watch a video of the Big Sandy Shoot and marvel at the number of
people with .30 caliber General Purpose Machine Guns, .50 caliber
heavy machine guns, 7.62mm Electric Gatling-type machine guns, 37mm
anti-tank cannons, etcetera. One guy even had a 76mm Hellcat tank
destroyer with a working 76mm main gun. All those weapons had the
primary purpose of killing people. A lot of people,dare I say most
people with rapid-fire high-rounds capacity shoot for fun.

Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if
doing so causes or aids thousands of murders.

The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most citizens would
potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in a standing
army. Those who disagree with the premise should argue for repeal.
Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet there's quite a bit
of it that will be found dispensable.

Btw, when hunting if you wound an animal, 5 seconds is a long time
and you'd better be really good at tracking because other wise that
animal will be long gone by the time you're ready to take that
second shot. If it's an large angry wounded animal that charges you
them your 5 seconds delay getting off a second shot could have you
either dead or severely injured.

As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for
subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been
saved only by his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion
really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than
it prevents.

BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second with the gun in
my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice has been for
accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never have
inconvenienced me.

So how do you propose to enforce the five second limit? It would seem
to outlaw essentially all repeating firearms, and almost all breech
loading single shot firearms. Most muzzle loaders would be ok, as long
as some clever ATF guy couldn't figure out how to reload in four seconds.

And let's remember that "the [American] right to bear arms" was
written when nobody conceived of a gun that could accurately fire
three rounds in a minute.

How many pages per minute could a press print, back when "the
[American] right to a free press" was written?

--

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 7:59:50 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

It seems odd we spend so much on other methods of suicide prevention,
but we refuse to really control the most effective suicide tool.

I will say this - after reading Frank I have taken out a 5 year membership in the NRA. I can see an illness in Frank that is probably infecting liberals as a group.

Now that it turns out that their "majority" for Hillary was in fact fraudulent votes they have to try something else.

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 9:46:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Big SNIP

The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round
per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus
handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for
hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I can fire a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle at 10 rounds per 10 seconds. The standard magazine capacity for that rifle is 10 rounds. If I wanted to I could get another magazine or two forit, cut those magazines apart and then weld the three of them together to form a 30 rounds capacity magazine. That would allow me to fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds. If I wanted more accurate aimed fire I could support the fore-end of the rifle on a sand bag.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you claim. I'm saying it
shouldn't be legal. Why would you want to do that anyway? Is it just in
case a gaggle of U.S.ian gun nuts charges over the border to the north?


Actually, at close range a shotgun with a wide spread of shiot can be better than a rifle since the shotgun can hit more than one person with each shot fired.

Watch a video of the Big Sandy Shoot and marvel at the number of people with .30 caliber General Purpose Machine Guns, .50 caliber heavy machine guns, 7.62mm Electric Gatling-type machine guns, 37mm anti-tank cannons, etcetera. One guy even had a 76mm Hellcat tank destroyer with a working 76mm main gun. All those weapons had the primary purpose of killing people. A lot of people,dare I say most people with rapid-fire high-rounds capacity shoot for fun.

Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if doing
so causes or aids thousands of murders.

Btw, when hunting if you wound an animal, 5 seconds is a long time and you'd better be really good at tracking because other wise that animal will be long gone by the time you're ready to take that se...

Frank, since you admire Canada's gun laws so much might I recommend you moving there to enjoy your complete safety?

On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:07:54 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

Slow! See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_a7pXWi6xo

You notice there's no target there. Spraying bullets all over the place doesn't have enough effect. I was told that on D-Day landings there wasn't enough rifles to go around and the second wave had the older bolt action rifles and a very limited number of rounds so that they would AIM for effect.

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 7:16:48 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Big SNIP

The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round
per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus
handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for
hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I can fire a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle at 10 rounds per 10
seconds. The standard magazine capacity for that rifle is 10
rounds. If I wanted to I could get another magazine or two forit,
cut those magazines apart and then weld the three of them together
to form a 30 rounds capacity magazine. That would allow me to fire
30 rounds in 30 seconds. If I wanted more accurate aimed fire I
could support the fore-end of the rifle on a sand bag.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you claim. I'm saying it
shouldn't be legal. Why would you want to do that anyway? Is it just
in case a gaggle of U.S.ian gun nuts charges over the border to the
north?


Actually, at close range a shotgun with a wide spread of shiot can
be better than a rifle since the shotgun can hit more than one
person with each shot fired.

Watch a video of the Big Sandy Shoot and marvel at the number of
people with .30 caliber General Purpose Machine Guns, .50 caliber
heavy machine guns, 7.62mm Electric Gatling-type machine guns, 37mm
anti-tank cannons, etcetera. One guy even had a 76mm Hellcat tank
destroyer with a working 76mm main gun. All those weapons had the
primary purpose of killing people. A lot of people,dare I say most
people with rapid-fire high-rounds capacity shoot for fun.

Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if
doing so causes or aids thousands of murders.

The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most citizens would
potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in a standing
army. Those who disagree with the premise should argue for repeal.
Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet there's quite a bit
of it that will be found dispensable.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

Does that sound like the 2nd Amendment was designed to have a stand-by army?

And for Frank's pleasu

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

Frank is crying his heart out that a standing army cannot rule.