Gotta agree with DH here. Feds trump State, and State trumps Local. Sometimes it's good and sometimes its bad. Because I am a Federal LEO I can carry anywhere anytime... it superceeds anything the states may have on the books. But in most cases I think the feds need to back off and let the states run their state.

As for the pot.... that's another topic and I wont get into my feelings on that one.

I take the 2nd amednment for what it is. The first part talks about the militia and the second part talks about the people. Just like the first gives you freedom of speach and freedom of religion. They are two seperate sections of the first amendment.

It's just that folks want to pretend like the "people" part of it is not there and just lump everything under militia.

And there is the rub "semiautomatic version of the M16 military rifle. " Just like there is a semi auto version of the AK47. The fully auto versions are the assualt rifles. The AR's are really no different than my Marlin model 60 22 that holds 18 rounds in the tube. They are both semi auto rifles, they opperate on the same principal. The only difference is the AR is made to look more like a military rifle.

And before there was an AR15 there was the AR10 which is the .308 version. I believe it was Colt that first put out the AR rifles that mimiced the looks of the military style weapons.



I'd take an AR10 into the woods anyday. I wouldn't be any different than a 308 bolt action other than I'd have a quicker reload time. I've seen plenty of AR10 that make a great sniper base weapon.... and afterall... isn't that what hunting is about. One shot... one kill.

As for the multi burst... unless you have a pre ban (the first ban) weapon...you're not going to have a tri-burst model... therefore the arguement of multi-burst weapons are moot.



Realistically... it's not going to happen unless you infringe on the rights of others. We already have enough laws on the books as it is. To impliment even more will just turn law abiding citizens into criminals.

It is nice to know you don't want to ban the AR or guns like it... and that this banter is more to show were we stand on the subject.

Okay, aside from anything else, the "AR" in AR-15 derives from the original manufacturer Armalite, not an acronym for Automatic Rifle or Assault Rifle.

No, I wasn't suggesting that states can trump federal law (with regards to medical marijuana or anything else). What I meant was that I remain suspicious and distrustful of the federal government's acting in the spirit of the people when it expends resources on arresting people for marijuana distribution and use in states that have decided that they won't, given the variety of more important and dangerous criminal activities out there. I'm very happy that states are now decriminalizing and legalizing marijuana entirely, so that those citizens do not need to maintain a paper trail to maintain state legality that simply highlights them as DEA targets.

But, that's getting off-topic, since we're talking about gun control here...

But those are important distictions. Your Marlin is a 22-caliber and probably shoots a LR cartidge. That cartridge has roughly 1/3 the muzzle velocity and 1/10th the energy of the 223 that the AR15 shoots. I don't want to get shot but if I had to choose which to stand in front of I know I would pick your Marlin.

If I'm not mistaken the .308 was the NATO answer to the Kalashnikov's that the Russians and then the Chinese copied from the German SKS which shoots a 7.62 mm round (roughly 30-caliber).





Sure. A 30-caliber round is a great hunting rifle and is pretty much what every hunter uses...in many variations. It is good for longer distances.

But the 223 M16/AR15 was designed for closer combat (Vietnam era) at distances of 100 yards or so. It is less accurate than, say a marksman's rifle, and would be pretty useless for most hunting because in the unlikely event you actually hit your target at 300 yards, the bullet energy would not likely be lethal. That's an advantage for a military rifle (nonlethality) because dead soldiers require less support than wounded ones. It is better to wound and inflict the additional obligation to care for a wounded comrade.



Yes, unfortunately I think you are correct. A complete ban on guns tomorrow would not make us any safer. These whackos that carry guns into schools, churches, movies theaters, and so forth do not do so openly and generally expect to die so no threat of punishment is likely to be effective.

But if we could keep them from getting their hands on a gun in the first place I think it could eliminate these tragedies. I just don't know how that could be done.

Yes... they are both 22 caliber but then again so is the 22-250.... and I'd rather take a hit from a 223 than a 22-250. The point I was trying to make is my Marlin 60 is a semi auto just like the AR is. Once you get into the territory of banning AR's then realistically what's next? The Marlin 60 because it's semi auto, or the Semi auto shotguns? They all work off the same principal. Pull the trigger once and it reloads itself waiting on the next trigger pull. The only difference is the AR looks more military than the Marlin or shotgun. I saw a youtube video recently (wish I could find it again) from a LEO that made a very valid point. He had an AK that was full auto and an AK in semi auto along with a hunting rifle. The point of the video was what was considered an Assualt Rifle.... but the main point of the video was he did a furniture swap on the semi and make a military looking rifle (semi auto AK) look more like the hunting semi auto rifle. Point was.... the more hunting rifle look still was the semi auto AK. He just changed out the stock and forearm. Everything else was the same. So the military version was considered by most an Assualt Rifle whereas the rifle he currently was holding was considered more of a hunting rifle.... but in reality it was the same rifle.



I believe you're right. The .308 is equivelent to a 7.62x51mm NATO. Back then our soldiers were using .308 sniper rifles thus it made resupply a whole lot easier. I've seen some super sweet AR10 Sniper Rifles. While some folks are diehard bolt action for snipers there are some that like the auto load feature. Look at the Barrett 50 cal. 10 round mag and auto load.... and it's deadly with it's rate of fire.



Agreed.... but if they ban the AR15 they will also ban the AR10... or even the AR30 & AR50 for that matter because it's got AR in the name. I personally wouldn't engage with an AR15 at much over 100 yards. That's where an AR10 or some other 30cal really shines.



A complete ban on guns tomarrow definitely wouldn't make us any safer... it would kick off the next American Revolution. There are way too many folks that would be willing to give the govt their guns one bullet at a time. Trust me when I say that doing time in a Federal joint is a cake walk... therefore the threat of imprisonment is really no threat at all. It's like going on a vacation. State time is much more difficult.

Have you given any consideration to allowing teachers or school administrators to carry concealed firearms?

I don't necessarily oppose that but I don't think that is the answer either. Plus you would have to figure out a way to ensure the teachers and administrators were trained, were not mentally ill, and so forth. And if they are not registered peace officers in some states you might not be able to allow them to carry and not allow students to carry. It just gets complicated. Some of those things could be solved with changes to laws but then you'd have people opposing any kinds of changes to gun laws. The case cited above (Heller) also established self defense as a "natural right" that legislatures cannot restrict. So it is unlikely that allowing one group to possess a defensive weapon and not another at a particular place would be constitutional.

The bottom line is, my opinion is basically that guns are harmless pieces of metal. They don't hurt anyone on their own. But they do make it easier for whackos to hurt other people. So I think we need to do something to keep them out if the hands of whackos. I think the NRA's extreme position is unrealistic. I don't know anyone, not even my friends that like to call themselves gun nuts, who likes the idea of nutcases shooting up theaters and schools. So perhaps a more realistic approach that actually addresses the problem could get us somewhere.

This sums up my view nicely. The problem comes from how to address this as a practical matter. There have been so many ideas out there, but still no proposal that satisfactorily preserves the people's constitutional rights AND minimizes the crazies/risks, in my opinion. As a side note, I'm not so sure I'd want to implement a plan to simply arm teachers/administrators, as many of them are probably not comfortable with this responsibility -- they already have enough to handle without the added duties that come with responsible gun ownership and practice, let alone cost (and yes, most of my teacher friends already have to buy nearly all of the classroom supplies for the kids, including in one recent instance some chairs!).

Two of the country's largest counties will be sending armed guards to their schools beginning today as students head back to class after the holiday break.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona's Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and Tempe, sent a group of armed volunteers, known as his "volunteer posse," to patrol area schools today.

"I believe we should put police officers in school, in uniform, armed," Arpaio said. "But so far all the politicians do is talk, talk, talk, and so we're out there doing something."

---------

Police officers in Los Angeles County are also taking action as more than a dozen law enforcement agencies increase patrols in area public schools beginning today.

"Every division has deployed officers to the actual schools," said Los Angeles Police Department Lt. Andy Neiman. "We'll have officers at every single elementary school this morning as children arrive with parents, and they'll be there for departure at the close of schools today."

Neiman said that officers will show up at schools throughout Los Angeles throughout the day to make sure students, faculty and parents are aware of their presence.

"We just want to monitor them a little bit closer," said Sgt. Michael Arriaga, spokesman for the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. "We're going to have an increased presence and instruct our personnel that if nothing serious is pending, then kind of as a routine they should make their presence known."

For the full story.... http://news.yahoo.com/armed-guards-sent ... ories.html

I'm looking for ideas as well, and so far the (concealed) arming of teachers/administrator (that volunteer, of course) is the most effective idea I've heard so far. It has the advantage of being relatively low cost (training and perhaps covering equipment costs, versus hiring full-time guards or reimbursing the police department), the teachers/admins know their school layout and people that should or shouldn't be there better than anyone, and because they are carrying concealed (and there's presumably more than one of them), there's no one wearing a uniform that says "shoot me first" to any prospective murderer. Tactically, some teachers might hole up with their students in locked-down classrooms, others (or administrators) might go towards the sounds of gunfire. But more significantly, they'd turn schools from soft targets to hard ones in the mind of a prospective murderer - certainly no "outsiders" would have to know if there were no teachers/administrators in any particular school actually armed under the program or not. The question of mentally ill teachers is a relatively easy one - we already try hard (I assume) to make sure our children are not being taught by the mentally ill, but in any case, what is the difference between someone mentally ill carrying a firearm, or someone mentally ill needing to go out to their car to get a firearm?

Heller had the following: "...nothing in our opinion should 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..."
Just as guards are able to carry guns in government buildings, and pilots are able to carry guns on aircraft, I would think there's no constitutional objection to allowing only school employees to carry guns on school grounds. But, IANAL.

Arpaio is an extremist. And if you say his posse, you probably would not be reassured. Plus, one of the 2 or 3 places where this is happening is a retirement community where there are no schools. But it sure got him in the national headlines didn't it!

When I lived in Maricopa County, I referred to Sheriff Joe as a thug.

Food for thought: "Obamacare Amendment Forbids Gun and Ammo Registration"
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... gistration

Again, I don't oppose or support the idea. But almost everything you said here dismisses as insignificant some rather enormous issues.

Any training of teachers/administrators would be an additional cost for schools. Who pays for that? In this country schools are under a full frontal attack from legislators to cut their funding. Maintenance training for firearms handling for officials that sometime carry incidental to their job (not LEOs but bailiffs, game wardens, and what not) is somewhere around 80 hours a year. That does not include initial training and retraining on tactics etc. (To be effective a teacher would have to know what tactics the police will be using so that they don't become a problem during a response.) That 80 hours is an enormous expense that someone has to pay for.

Teachers don't necessarily know who should and shouldn't be there. But even if they did, many of the recent situations have involved people who "belonged" where they committed their crimes.

"There's no one wearing a uniform that says shoot me first?" Um, being the only adult in the room combined with the knowledge that any teacher may be armed sends that very message!

As for holing up in a classroom behind a locked door. You should inform yourself about this. I am personally aware of a few schools where the ability of teachers to lock the doors has been taken away recently because a) it cost money to deal with lockouts, and b) the police recommend it so that they don't have to deal with locked doors during any response. I find the second reason particularly stupid. But the point remains, something as simple as that can be quite expensive!

The "program" you suggest sounds similar to what we have for air security and teachers would be like air marshals. It costs billions of dollars and relies on extensive and invasive individual screening of every person. And few people are convinced it is actually effective.

Again, I don't disagree with you and I don't even think you are wrong. I just think that what you suggest is enormously expensive and full of complications that make it unworkable.