I have several thoughts on the gun debate here.
First, as sort of a general principle, the rights we have are “natural” rights, they are not given to us by government. Instead, we cede certain rights as part of giving our government its powers. Clarifying some of the rights we retained was necessary early on, hence the Bill of Rights, which contains the Second Amendment.

The 2nd is interesting because of the mention of a “well regulated militia”. Since we are a republic, the states retained rights and power and only transferred a limited power to the federal government. Retaining the right to arm a militia seems like a good idea if you want to keep your federal government in check. However when several states excercised their right to secede, a war ensued to prevent the secession. Since the seceding states lost, that might have been a really good time to revisit the 2nd Amendment - not much point in having a militia if it can’t win and if there really is no right to secede. (I’m not sure either point was truly decided by the Civil War, but it is interesting to think about).

All rights come with responsibilities and limitations. Can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater, right of free speech notwithstanding. And that right means I’m sometimes subjected to hearing things I don’t care for, find offensive, or consider wrong.

Unfortunately the consequences of the right to bear arms are, while statistically rare, quite high. Serious injury or death. I bear the risk of experiencing those consequences as a direct result of having retained the right to own a gun. Is this too high a price for that right? Given what I said above about the Civil War, I think it probably is. Others may differ.

That said, the practical problem with gun control of any form is getting guns away from criminals, and getting rid of all gun stuff which we decide to control. So we outlaw bump stocks. How do we get every one of them removed from society? And so forth.

My opinion is we have to move from “guns good; guns bad” debates to more serious discussions of the constitutional issues and practical realities. That includes recognizing that gun ownership in Los Angeles makes little sense (except as collectors items, or for “sportsmen” who hunt out of area), but makes a whole lot more sense in rural areas where hunting is much more a part of daily life, and police protection is really lacking. Tough to parse into solveable bits.

Interesting that you mention the term "Militia" The majority of Militia Groups in the USA are "White".

Militia Accused of Plotting War on U.S. Gov't | Fox News

But every time one of these group is in the news they don't use the word domestic terrorist.

Always know:

Credentials of source
Biased or unbiased reputation
Source of statistics

I googled him and all I found was his article. The Micheal Owen that came up was a soccer player in UK. What are this Micheal's credentials.

Micheal is biased toward no change to gun control laws

There is no reference of source for statistics in or at the bottom of the article.

In first paragraph he states problems are so complex no one wants to deal with them--That is not true. What is true is there are no discussions/debates by experts from both sides by a congressional committee to break down complexity to manageable actions where there is consensus.

Views on gun policy in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

It's like they try to prevent it. This whole all or nothing attitude is what got us where we are.

I refuse to believe that the source of the incredible number of illegal guns in Chicago/DC etc can not be tracked down and minimized. Whatever the market forces are that keep that in place can surely be tracked to who stays in power or who makes money because of it. Determine who loses their political job and who loses money when gang/drug violence is reduced and you will find how to stop it. It won't involve anything related to gun. The guns are the symptom not the condition.

CCW requirements are not consistent state to state. An example is the amount or type of training. Some states don't require a permit at all so that would have to be standardized. Seems like that would cause a huge increase in CCWs. Texas recently passed an open carry law. If I go somewhere and there is someone with a visible revolver I will immediately leave. My view is that if someone is carrying a gun, certainly a visible one, the odds of getting shot obviously dramatically increase.

Why is a 100 round magazine too much and 40 OK? When does anyone need a bump stock? In what circumstances would anyone want one? Asking because I really don't know.

I had many of the same thoughts in my previous post and echo'd the open carry sentiment in the OT section. Open carry in a public, especially family oriented, location is extremely disrespectful and self-serving.

https://www.chicagocriminallawyerblo...m-chicago.html

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/rec...?id=d000000082

Here are the members of Congress who take the most money from the gun lobby - MarketWatch

Note--no term limits in Congress

Any Weapon Box for E53?
 

The power and money aren't Congress or the small change from the NRA. I'm taking about the century old corruption in the city of Chicago as an example. Why when every term is worse for the residents do the carbon copy leaders stay in charge? Only answer: corruption. A resent study showed that something like 100 civil servants such as Police and fire are paid over 200,000 a year. How is that possible? Corruption.

Corruption in Chicago is as open of a secret as it gets. If the police were paid fairly they could hire 100s more and have beat cops that know everybody so they aren't perceived as the enemy.

Why *wouldn't* somebody want to rapid fire 100 rounds? For that matter, a minigun at 3000 rounds a minute. We have to make sacrifices of liberty to be more civil, but people are misled to believe things like high capacity magazines are more than an insignificant part of the problem and for my entire life I've seen that type of debate derail any forward progress.

Here is a real world example: from the TV show myth busters, one of the hosts was very liberal anti-gun.

Until she had the opportunity to fire one! She absolutely loves shooting now including being involved with (can't recall if she personally shot) the minigun.

In the USA an ultimate expression of freedom is going to a firing range and for no other reason than it's awesome, shoot 100s of rounds of ammo.

Maybe if anybody that wants to have a say in the matter has to take a safety course and spend a day on the range shooting one of any type of weapon that they want to have a discussion about.

The majority of people trying to inject their thought on the matter are just simply ignorant. (that term is meant to be factual not disparaging, they literally don't know what they are talking about).

I will have a lot more respect for an anti-gun person who actually shot a few hundred rounds from AR-15 and says "yep scared the shit out of me I think they are as dangerous as a grenade with the pin pulled" because I'm confident that as many will turn sides to realize that in the big picture it's pointless to worry about long guns at all for now since 97% of gun problems in the USA are tied to handguns.

"Assault rifle" is a term invented to demonize the majority of Americans yet the left is surprised that we are annoyed by their methods. Start from a point of honest reporting and things will work much smoother. (this goes for either side).

Dishonest example: there is an epidemic of mass shootings that are out of control and assault rifles are a big part of the problem.

Honest example: a rare case of the use of the most common rifle sold in America caused a single day blip of nearly 1/4 of 1% in the gun deaths in America and would be worth investigating if there is any thing that could be or should have been done.

Answer: no, not really; look into the bigger fish killing the other 99% of Americans and actually do some good.

Here's a thought: Democrats have a golden opportunity: write a bill for CCW reciprocity as long as certain level of training is met using a non-moronic standard (eg il standard is clearly moronic not different from poll tax).

How bad would that make the impotent GOP look if the Dems beat them to it?

NRA should get right on board as long as they keep away from national registration. There would be 100,000,000 cheers if reciprocity was passed. The problem is nobody can compromise. Left will insist on Registration = eventual confiscation and right will insist on "shall allow" right to carry. (morons both).

Let the states decide how "full libtard" they wish to go but once a minimum is met allow a state into reciprocity agreement.

Did gun crime change dramatically when any state introduced CCW? Nope not either way.

I think I saw a one year drop in year to year gun violence in Chicago after CCW but back to normal after a couple of years.

Here is the second amendment:
“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.”

This is the source of my using the word “militia” and I had no other intent nor meaning in mind.

One reading of the second amendment is that it enables states to defend themselves and/or challenge each other or the federal government by ensuring they can call up a “well regulated militia” which obviously is armed. This would suggest that the states and thus the people should have access to equivalent arms, which these days is a pretty difficult position to wrap my mind around (nukes, anyone).

Note that the second amendment does not in any way restrict or limit the “arms”.