Editorials do not appear in the online version of the newspaper - until pulled over with a post on Town Square. So, here you go NRA member "LiberalGun" from Rex Manor. Take a shot. And answer the question I posed in connection with the related article: what weapons do you contend qualify as "arms" you are entitled to "keep and bear" under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Well regulated militias could bear arms that fired a shot a minute, when written.

What do the gun nuts want on the streets and schools - weapons that can fire ten rounds a minute? 30 rounds? 60 rounds? More?

Pick a number and then explain to the parents who are buying bullet-proof backpacks for their children - why it's important to stop 60 rounds a minute.

(here come the deflections!)

"For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Mencken might have appreciated the update that as of 2019, when some people do not see, or don't wish to see, some of the complexities inhering in a particular problem, they try to dismiss those complexities by labeling them rhetorically as "deflections."

@somethoughts - just framing the coming deflections, or do you have any thoughts on the topic at hand:

What do the gun nuts want on the streets and schools - weapons that can fire ten rounds a minute? 30 rounds? 60 rounds? More?

What will satisfy the emotional need of gun lovers? Yes, emotional. Clearly one does not need military style assault weapons to fight off an onslaught of crazed deer or rabbits. Weapons in the home are rarely used for self defense - far more often they harm a loved one, so to keep one at home is purely an emotional decision.

The opening sentence states

“The United States has seen 258 mass shooting incidents in the 225 days of 2019, according to data published Wednesday by the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive”

And then the diatribe jumps to a ban on “assault” weapons. Am I to believe that all of these deaths were caused by assault weapons? Hardly, most of these deaths were caused by handguns in major cities. Is An average of one shooting death per day a high or low figure. The diatribe provides no context. Yesterday an angry husband shot three people, killing two and then committed suicide. Would banning assault weapons have stopped this mass shooting incident?

I am still hoping that the NRA member who posted on the accompanying story about Mayors for banning the private ownership of assault weapons ("LiberalGun" from Rex Manor) will attempt to answer the question I posed above: What "arms" do private persons have the right to "keep and bear" under the Second Amendment?

@Falselogic:

Quite the rant. Do you feel that military grade assault style weapons should be widely available?

You said,
"Quite the rant. Do you feel that military grade assault style weapons should be widely available?"

There has never been one military anywhere in the world that has used an AR-15, AKA "assault weapon". Military weapons, like the M16, are illegal here.

The media and the Democrats have created a boogie man name for the AR 15, to scare the uninformed.

Knifes kill more people every year than the "assault weapon", period. Yet no one is calling for a ban on knifes.

Alcohol kills far more people every year than all firearms do, yet when you sit in your car, are you afraid of people calling for a ban on drivers license because of the those who drink-get drunk and drive and kill people in a car crash that way?

Your fake outrage really shows here, you are not addressing your outrage on those items that cause far more harm to people.

It is estimated that 6,000 times everyday that people use firearms to defend themselves.

The AR15 is just a semi automatic firearm that you have to squeeze the trigger every time you fire a bullet. The goal for the Democrats is to ban the AR15, the most popular firearm in the country, if they can do that, then they can do it for every other semi automatic firearm, including handguns.

This country already had banned alcohol, we all know what happened. People still got alcohol, just like drugs today, it is illegal yet very easy to get.

Banning firearms only means law abiding citizens will no longer have a means to protect themselves, only criminals will have the guns.

For those who think that expanded back grounds checks will work, in the last 10 years you can not name one individual who did a mass shooting that would have failed a background check.

The only item that all these mass shooters have in common is that this is a young generation who is growing up on prescription drugs to change some short of a behavior issue that they have. The one warning all these drugs have is that the person may become violent. Previous generations did not have these drugs wildly available, which is why you are seeing this with the Millenniums.

The mental-drug issue is the cause that needs to be addressed, not the tool-firearms.

Example of another tool, a bus.
"That killed at least 84 people and injured scores more, many of them small children." In France, 2016.
Web Link

(pssst... Gary, your guy's baaaaaackkkk...)


> Your fake outrage really shows here

What 'fake outrage'?

What do the gun nuts want on the streets and schools - weapons that can fire ten rounds a minute? 30 rounds? 60 rounds? More?

You are only politicizing these tragedies to further a political agenda.

You have said nothing to address the problem.

> You are only politicizing these tragedies to further a political agenda

Saving American lives, protecting American families from unfathomable tragedy is now called "politicizing" by the fringe?

One notes you've already abandoned your false claim of 'fake outrage'.


Again:
What do the gun nuts want on the streets and schools - weapons that can fire ten rounds a minute? 30 rounds? 60 rounds? More?

You said,
"What do the gun nuts want on the streets and schools - weapons that can fire ten rounds a minute? 30 rounds? 60 rounds? More?"

I have no issue with any law abiding citizen having an semi automatic weapon that can fire a bullet each time they pull the trigger.

I am afraid of being disarmed by the likes of people like you, and not able to defend myself.

Schools are already "GUN FREE ZONES" Why don't you ask politely that all mentally ill people to please do not go there and shoot anyone. Maybe they will listen if you are extra nice, as laws are not honored by them.

Automatic weapons are again, ILLEGAL.

I am totally for banning any and all mentally ill and criminals from obtaining any weapons. Passing more laws thinking that criminals will obey these new laws, as opposed to the existing laws, shows pure ignorance.

Great that you folks have animated the discussion. But only 157 views so far. I am afraid not enough people will care until tragedy hits closer to home. And, odds are, it won't. My idea is cameras (and camera triggers) in public places. That should help some. I mentioned the idea at the Board of Supervisor's meeting last week. 60 people had signed up to speak under genneral "oral communications" - mostly about county contract negotiations. I waited maybe 90 minutes for one minute. I pointed out that I had raised the matter of cameras following the December 2, 2015 shooting in San Bernardino. 14 public employees had died - 22 injured. Nothing changed - except maybe some extra police "active shooter" training. Not enough in my book.

One person seems to get repeatedly hung up on the well-regulated militia portion of the Constitution so I will explain. During that tim, almost everyone owned a weapon of war or "assault rifle" called a musket. Muskets were not passed out by the government, they were all owned by private citizens. The Government wanted the people to own guns so that they could protect themselves and their property, but more importantly, the country, in case it was attacked.

The Second Amendment also directly referee to the "right of the People to keep and bear arms". Not the "Right of the government, nor the right of those assigned to the militia, but the right of the PEOPLE. That word is very important because it clearly means the citizens of the United States and not the Government.

As far as the article is concerned, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon". That term was invented by left wing politicians and organizations as a way to make the guns sound more dangerous and/or illegal and whom have as their goal, the eventual ban of all guns from private ownership.



Jim Neal
Modesto, Ca
(Formerly Old Mountain View)

> "assault weapon". That term was invented by left wing politicians

Please cite your reference. (other than NRA propaganda)

Most folks acknowledge that assault rifle/weapon came from "Sturmgewehr" which (Godwin be damned) originated with Hitler. I look forward to your link that assigns it to "left wing politicians."


“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.”

As I noted above, the Supreme Court majority in 2008 rejected the contention that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to members of a militia. One could test the decision in another case - but the decision is precedent. As to Jim now in Modesto, lunch in November presupposes that President Trump will be re-elected (or re-selected by the electoral college). Seems unlikely. But there certainly will be no impeachment and removal afer the November election or suspension under the 25th amendment by action of the VP and cabinet - unless maybe Trump offers to drop all sanctions against Russia and hand over all military secrets in exchange for a Trump Tower in Moscow and lifetime asylum.

Oops. Lost track of the thread. My chat about that 2008 decision of the United States Supreme Court (D.C. v. Heller) is on another current thread about gun control.

@Well Regulated - You asked, so here it is ( Web Link ). The gist of the article reads:

____________________
The term "assault weapon" became widely used starting the late 1980s. Many attribute its popularization to a 1988 paper written by gun-control activist and Violence Policy Center founder Josh Sugarmann and the later reaction to a mass shooting at a Stockton, Calif., school in January 1989.
_____________________


Funny that you ask me for links without providing any of your own and how you try to tie the term assault rifle to Hitler ( and by extension to conservatives ). Please cite YOUR references, other than left wing propaganda.

Note to all: Assault Rifle and Assault Weapon are two different terms.


Jim Neal
Modesto, Ca
(Formerly Old Mountain View)

Using a school shooting example in trying to slice the narrow difference in the terms assault weapon and assault rifle. Okay. Well, then. That's the very definition of Web Link


Next, the gun crazies will use the Aurora theater shooting to delineate assault FIREARMS from assault weapons.

Took ten seconds to find and read a link from "Sturmgewehr" to Hitler. Sorry you couldn't follow the other poster's message.

@ body parts - Keep moving those goal posts! I started out by explaining the second amendment and how the "well regulated militia" portion fits into that, and that it does not mean that private citizens are prevented from owning guns.

I then responded to a request for a citation, which I provided.

Now you are trying to muddy the original argument (that THE PEOPLE have the right to bear arms) by deliberately misstating my request for a link that proves that someone deliberately invented the term "assault rifle" based on some connection to Hitler. I didn't say anything about "a link from "Sturmgewehr" to Hitler". I speak German so I know what it means. Nice try though.

The reason that I am making a distinction between assault rifles and assault weapons in that assault rifles do have a military definition and are not sold to the public, whereas assault weapons is a made up term that tried to make civilian rifles sound as if they are deigned for military use. The school shooting has nothing to do with the definition so I don't know where you got that idea.

@Gary- I'm not presupposing that the President will be reelected, only that he will serve out his first term (Which will be clear by November 2020). It was pretty obvious from the beginning of the whole Russia hoax that it was BS designed to get the President to fall into a perjury trap or charge him with some form of obstruction. I say it was obvious because the Russians would have had to have been incredibly prescient to predict that Trump would be elected President; AND Trump would have to be the smartest, most capable person on the planet to be able to steal the Presidency from under the Clintons using Russian help while Obama was President, Biden was VP, Comey was FBI director, Brennan was running the CIA, and Clapper was the Director of National Intelligence. Either that or they were all incredibly stupid and inept. However, both conditions are untrue, therefore the charge had to be BS.



Jim Neal
Modesto, Ca
(Formerly Old Mountain View)

Dude, you seem emotional about guns. I just scanned some posts and read your last one.

* The school shooting has nothing to do with the definition so I don't know where you got that idea

I got it from you:
____________________
The term "assault weapon" became widely used ..... the later reaction to a mass shooting at a Stockton, Calif., school in January 1989.
_____________________


* Funny that you ask me for links without providing any of your own and how you try to tie the term assault rifle to Hitler ( and by extension to conservatives ). Please cite YOUR references

Th poster should have; I just suggested you google it. Then you said:

* I didn't say anything about "a link from "Sturmgewehr" to Hitler".

Uhhhhh.

[Post removed due to being too garbled to read]

Jim. Trump will not complete his term if he resigns just before the January 2021 transition so that temporary President Michael Pence can grant him a far-reaching PARDON. As to Russia, Putin wanted Trump to beat Hillary Clinton and directed Russian interference in the election. Trump was happy to receive the help. Whether it was decisive to winning close votes in swing states is not easy to figure out. Trump lied about his dealings with Russia to get elected. He lied about other business dealings and affairs. He has maintained his interests in Trump companies - creating conflicts of interest as President. Trump has shown deference to Putin - as if Putin has leverage over him. Trump associates hid and lied about Russian contacts before and after the election. Trump insists on speaking confidentially with Putin as if business deals are still being made. Trump stands for nothing - but himself. He would sell America to the Devil for the right price. He will tell any lie he thinks will keep him in office and out of prison. But at least we can agree on this: Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate who would have been an untrustworthy President.

@well regulated militias

"What do the gun [owners] want on the streets and schools - weapons that can fire ten rounds a minute? 30 rounds? 60 rounds? More?"

Sorry to educate you, but even the total amature who tried to kill Ronald Reagan in 1981 fired off 6 shots from a really cheap revolver in 1.7 seconds and 5 of his shots hit someone.

Many, if not most, recreational target shooters (with perfectly ordinary 6-shot revolvers) can fire all 6 shots in 2 seconds and reload in 2 seconds and fire off another 6 shots in 2 seconds. 12 shots in 6 seconds or less.

I have a revolver made in 1905 and even though I'm no expert and have had no professional training at all with firearms, I can fire all six shots, reload and fire the next six all in about 10 seconds. Oh and yes, all shots on target.

World record holder does that in under 3 seconds, fire 6, reload, fire six in under 3 seconds total.

What do law-abiding gun-owners want?
We want the mis-informed gun-ban people to understand the following:
Society is safer when the bad guys cannot know who is armed.
And:
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
And:
When you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.

As for schools, they are safer when people thinking of attacking a school already know that one or more responsible & trained & unidentifiable persons in plain-clothes on campus may be armed and might be anywhere in the school.

Mass killers are cowards and only attack "soft-targets" where they believe they wont encounter armed resistance or where they believe they will be able to evade the obvious uniformed armed officers, like the Columbine killers did.

No doubt you want to ban all firearms from civilian possession so the criminals will have helpless victim zones everywhere. Just like that peaceful utopia of gun-control, Mexico.

@Gary

"My idea is cameras (and camera triggers) in public places."

What exactly is a "camera trigger"?

Gary, good news, I found the exact camera system you have been advocating. There's even a TV show to explain how the system works, just exactly the way you described. It's called: "Person of Interest".
That show is basically one long commercial for your style of camera system.

"I am afraid not enough people will care until tragedy hits closer to home."

My sister-in-law was shot in a robbery and spent weeks in the hospital and nearly died a couple times. She became phobically afraid of firearms. She couldn't even stand to see a gun in TV/movies or even in the holster of a uniformed cop.

What cracked her phobia was about a year later when she told me of how this was the second time she fought for her life in a hospital after being the victim of a crime. She had been hit by a drunk driver with a car.

I asked her how she ever managed to go near a car again, to look at a car, how she managed to drive a car herself? If getting shot made her irrationally afraid of guns, why had she not also become irrationally afraid of cars too? Or why did she still drink alcohol herself? Why not become an alcohol prohibitionist wanting to ban alcohol, or at least phobic about alcohol?

Then I told her how my elderly mother had saved her own life with her gun when a known violent multiple-felon broke into her house one night. No shot was fired, but the felon decided to turn and run away when my mother produced her handgun and pointed it at his chest.

Now my sister-in-law owns her own guns and is a target-shooter.

"Nothing changed - except maybe some extra police "active shooter" training."

Actually, as the most recent mass killings have proven, we did learn from Columbine and re-trained police are tremendously more effective in stopping and even preventing such mass "soft-target" attacks.
Don't underestimate the effects of police training!

Good or bad effects.

@ well regulated militias

"Do you feel that military grade assault style weapons should be widely available?"

Do you even know how to tell the difference between "military grade" and "civilian grade"? Could you explain what you think the difference is?

If you mean semi-automatic firearms, rifles, shotguns and pistols, then they already are widely available and have been for almost 100 years, since WWI. Today, by the most recent estimates, USA civilians own 393 million firearms. The bulk of those are semi-auto firearms and most of them are as high in quality and performance as anything the military has.

If you mean fully-automatic firearms or select-fire fully-automatic firearms, then those WERE widely available until 1986 when the ATF arbitrarily stopped issuing a "TAX-STAMP" for any new full-autos for the public to own. Many were confiscated for various paperwork excuses so that today, there are only 200,000 legally registered full-autos in civilian hands. NONE of them have ever been used in a violent crime.

OH, and according to the Bill Clinton Administration, many millions of full-automatic firearms have been stolen from law-enforcement or military and many millions more military grade full-autos have been smuggled into the USA from other nations, like China.

So, even actual military-grade full-autos are widely available to anyone willing to break the long-standing gun laws to obtain one.

In other words, when you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.

@the mis-informed writer of this opinion piece:

I do wish the media were not so ignorant about firearms, or even that they would actually have opinions of their own rather than just parroting the opinions of the gun-ban crowd.

"The United States has seen 258 mass shooting incidents in the 225 days of 2019, according to data published Wednesday by the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive."

Only a tiny handful of those cases involved so-called "assault weapons".
Only a tiny handful were indiscriminate attacks on public "soft-targets" seeking a body-count.

Something like 90% of those 258 cases were done with an ordinary handgun by someone seeking a specific target.

The bulk of those cases were by people who already could not legally own firearms and mostly done with firearms not legally obtained.
Criminals who kill people don't really let gun laws slow them down.

"Earlier this month there were three mass shootings in the span of a week in Gilroy, El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio."

The fame-seeking killer in Dayton used a HANDGUN, NOT a rifle.

"HR 112, that would strengthen background checks."

The FIRST problem with background checks is NOT a problem with the law itself, the problem is that less than half of the relevant information that the law REQUIRES to be reported up to the FBI is NOT being reported to the FBI by state and local law-enforcement agencies or courts.

The Federal government has never made any serious effort to get the state or local LEOs or courts to comply with the Federal background check laws.
Same for state-level background check systems, the required information is mostly not reported to the relevant database.

The second problem with the background checks is that even when these checks identify a known felon trying to buy a gun, NOBODY bothers to go arrest these criminals for their new Federal and State Felonies they have just committed.

Criminals know that they have nothing to fear from trying to buy a gun from a lawful gun store because the worst that will happen is they will be denied. They can just keep trying until someone at the FBI hits the wrong button and approves a sale.

"The federal ban is necessary for a myriad of reasons, one of them being that it would prevent people from being able to go to another state to purchase semi-automatic and automatic weapons as the Gilroy gunman reportedly did."

The Gilroy killer was legally still a resident of Nevada and had valid ID to prove it to the Nevada gun store. However, the existing laws of California already forbid him from bringing that rifle back to California from Nevada. No new laws are required to make that "more" illegal.

"makes the concept of a ban a no-brainer,"

"no-brainer" is about right here, no brains and little information makes for really bad public policy and no help at all in reducing either these exceedingly rare cases or even the overall gun crime rates.

I wish the media would bother to get educated about an important issue BEFORE they go off and publish a groundless opinion they are being spoon-fed by the gun-ban crowd.

" it's a moral imperative that lawmakers take action to reduce the bloodshed."

So, to actually save lives and prevent crimes...
STOP the media handing out FAME to mass killers.
STOP bestowing ultimate FAME if they happen to use an AR-15 style rifle.
Start REPORTING the relevant info to the FBI.
Start actually ARRESTING criminals when they fail a background check.
Start respecting the rights of ordinary law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed handgun for lawful defensive purposes.

Do those things and you will substantially reduce the criminal mis-use of firearms.

@ author of article

I have made this offer before to every news reporter, or editorial writer, etc.

I would be quite happy to provide you direct hands-on lawful experience with firearms and all the information you show you lack in your writings. My treat.

However, after decades of offering to educate reporters, not one has ever taken me up on my offer.

I wonder why?

My best guess is that reporters would prefer to maintain their plausible ignorance of firearms so they will seem more sincere while spreading mis-information.

I suspect that many, if not most, reporters know deep-down that they are violating their own main responsibility of factually educating the public whenever they are writing about firearms. Which is why they never can allow themselves to be exposed to any information that threatens the gun-ban agenda.