Comments on: Time to look at repeal

By: DougM

DougM — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 06:25:00 +0000

As someone who shoots constantly and spent a long time usng military weapons, anyone who hunts with an AR-15 is making a very poor choice. It is simply the civlianized very of the M-16 and the 5.56 mm round (or .223 if you prefer) is very small without much hittting power – the balllistics for the 5.56 and the old 7.62 NATO rds aren’t much different at 200 yards (normal battle range) but the 7.62 has far more hitting power. As well, the Tikka T3 Tactical rifle which was the choice of a good number of police forces for snipers, eventually went up to the .308 round (very close to the 7.62 X 39 Gr old NATO) for just that reason.

By: Canadian Observer

Canadian Observer — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:58:00 +0000

I predict that NOTHING will be accomplished on gun control after months of debating, arguing, name-calling and, quite probably, violence.

Why?……because it is a partisan topic which recent history demonstrates nobody will dare concede anything to the “enemy”. Just look at the economic abyss the Americans have us staring into because the needs of the party usually trumps the needs of the people in politics.

When was the word “compromise” removed from English dictionaries?

Political parties and their hardcore sycophants are destroying western democracy.

By: kenn2

kenn2 — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:40:00 +0000

Apparently, disinformation is rife.

By: Elilla Shadowheart

Elilla Shadowheart — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:17:00 +0000

Apparently reading is hard. “Hunting rifle platform” simple modifications make the gun into an excellent hunting rifle.

By: RevnantDream

RevnantDream — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 01:26:00 +0000

It was the main reason used by the Japanese Military not invade to the American mainland. They felt they would face a gun behind every blade of grass. They would have happily to.

By: Brett

Brett — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:43:00 +0000

Actually, in 2008 the US SC ruled “that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” In 2010, it also ruled that the 2nd Amendment also limits State and local governments to the same extent as the Federal Government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

By: Brett

Brett — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:24:00 +0000

It already exists in Canada, as there is a 5 round limit on pretty much every long gun so no I don’t see it as a problem. However, I do have a problem with outright bans on gun because all that does is disarm the law abiding people as seen in the UK.

By: kenn2

kenn2 — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:18:00 +0000

Thanks for the correction.

Then you agree that a ban on large ~~clips~~ magazines wouldn’t be much of a problem?

By: kenn2

kenn2 — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:12:00 +0000

Actually, that’s my point – the 2nd Amendment as originally cast by the US founding fathers was to ensure a “standby” army, ostensibly to guard against tyranny of the central government, but in effect as standby army to keep the British from recolonizing. But THAT part hasn’t been tested.

The 2nd Amendment has since been recast as simply a blanket right to possess firearms. But it is not absolute. Quoting from a recent SCOTUS decision (DC v. Heller):

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s
holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at
the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the
carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

That last bit would seem to argue that a ban on large-clip assault weapons would not run afoul of the 2nd Amendment.

By: Brett

Brett — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:09:00 +0000

This is where I have a problem with your so-called knowledge of weapons and that is the terminology that you are using.

There is no such thing as a 30 round “clip”. However, there is such a thing as a 30 round magazine and in fact they even make them bigger depending upon the weapon. You are making the same mistake as the average journalist makes using terms that may sound good, but undermine any credibility you had on the subject. This article should clear up your confusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_%28ammunition%29

For the record, I don’t believe a sport shooter needs more than a 5 round magazine. A collector may have a case for having a 30 round magazine for maintaining authenticity, but a sport shooter can’t make that case.